Tipton Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their needs with them. People were involved in individualised assessments of care including, but not limited to, their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, to enable them to receive care that had good outcomes. One relative said, “The care plan reflects their current care needs and I was involved in it’s creation.” These plans were regularly reviewed or updated if there was a change of circumstance. People consistently told us they were involved in planning and assessing their own care which met their individual needs and preferences. People’s individual circumstances were identified and assessed. For example, where people were living with a specific medical condition or restriction this was assessed to support them how they wanted and in a way which effectively met their needs.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People’s individual care plans included assessments using recognised best practice tools. For example, mobility, diet and nutrition. People told us these assessments accurately recorded their needs and wishes for support. When there was a change in a person’s individual circumstances this was reviewed and if needed their care plan updated. For example, if someone’s skin integrity changed this was reassessed and other healthcare partners were informed and involved to ensure the person received effective care.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. One relative told us concerns were identified by staff and with their support the right information was passed to GP services to ensure their relative received appropriate support. People and relatives consistently told us staff communicated well with them and passed any observed changes efficiently.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were encouraged to manage their own health. One relative told us staff identified their family member’s prescriptions had not arrived as expected. They raised this with them immediately to ensure the person did not go without their medicine. This relative found the staff members level of vigilance to be reassuring.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. All those we spoke with told us their care and support was reviewed frequently. These reviews included, but were not limited to, checking with the person about their mobility, medicines and the physical environment. This was to identify if there were any changes as well as getting the opinion of the person receiving support. When changes were noted we saw the management team had adapted the person’s care to reflect the changes.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Everyone we spoke with told us they agreed for the care and support they received. Where necessary the provider had procedures in place to engage people with legal authority or responsibility to make decisions within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This included the duty to consult others such as carers, families and/or advocates, where appropriate. When people had delegated authority to make decisions, we saw the management team had completed safe checks to ensure the correct process had been followed.