A2Z Home Care Services 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 people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. Staff gained consent from people before providing care. Staff worked well together and although there was limited evidence of working with other services, where they did, feedback was positive. The registered manager communicated regularly with people to ensure they achieved positive outcomes. People’s relatives gave positive feedback related to meeting people’s nutrition and hydration needs. However, not all staff were able to describe people’s needs here and care records lacked detail of their preferences.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s relatives did not recall being involved in the initial assessment and did not have formal reviews of care plans with the person and the service. However, they felt people’s needs were met and did describe being in regular contact with the registered manager where ongoing care needs were discussed.

The registered manager said they completed an assessment of needs for all new referrals. They told us they ensured they could meet the needs of the people before accepting them to the service.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always dated, and we found discrepancies between documents throughout the records. This meant it was not always clear which was the current information.

People’s relatives felt staff prepared meals people liked and were aware of their needs and preferences. This included for a religion-related dietary requirement. A relative said, “I’ve told them, and they have it all there for them.”

Staff told us people did not have any special needs related to eating. This differed to the information we reviewed in care records. Therefore, we were not assured staff prepared meals for people according to their needs. However, a member of staff told us, “If there are any allergies I will check and will make choices based on client requirement.”

People’s nutrition care plans did not include information about their preferences. We did not see any examples of what food and drink people liked. However, we saw guidance for staff to offer food and fluids throughout the day.

People’s relatives were happy with how the service worked with them. A relative said, “[Registered manager] normally calls me: what’s going well, what isn’t.”

Staff felt supported by their colleagues. They described positive working relationships among the team. A member of staff said, “I feel comfortable reaching out to the appropriate team members when necessary.”

Another professional confirmed the service worked with them to plan people’s care.

The service had team meetings. The minutes we reviewed did not include discussion of any service users. However, a member of staff told us, “We have meetings we always discuss things about clients and how we can improve our service.”

People’s relatives told us they were supported to ensure people accessed other services as required. A relative said, “They tell us if they think we need to get the chiropodist.”

The registered manager told us they had referred people to district nurses for support with pressure care.

People’s records included limited evidence of referrals to other services. There were prompts at assessment for details to be completed for social workers, district nurses etc but those we reviewed were blank.

People were supported to ensure they had positive outcomes. The nature of some visits meant they were primarily task-focused but there were some examples of supporting people to maintain a good quality of life.

Staff gave positive feedback about people’s quality of life at the service and confirmed they would be happy for a relative of their own to receive support there. A staff member, said, “I know, and I believe that myself and my colleagues are providing the best care possible for the clients and the clients are very happy and satisfied with the services.”

The registered manager told us they keep updating care plans to promote people’s quality of life. This included recommendations to see a district nurse if they needed to or amending the times of their visit to enable them to attend religious events.

People’s relatives told us staff gained consent from people before providing care.

Staff understood consent was needed before providing care and that sometimes it may take time for people to feel comfortable with this. They described what they would do if someone was reluctant to accept support and action they would take if a person refused.

The service had a consent policy, and we saw consent forms in people’s files. The registered manager advised Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA) would be recorded in people’s files but at the time of our visit there were no service users who lacked capacity.