Magnus Care Ltd

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. This is our first assessment of the service. We have rated this key question good.

The registered manager undertook a comprehensive assessment of people’s health, social, communication and broader needs with them and their relatives. They understood people’s needs and worked with social workers and others to put in place the right care.

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.

People’s support needs were assessed, and they received care in line with these. People and their relatives were involved in all stages of care planning, this ensured people’s opinions and desires were being met wherever possible.

Care plans were detailed and robust, they included specialist advice and guidance on how best to support people and these were reviewed on a regular basis. Staff also used a range of assessment tools to ensure peoples medical and nutritional needs were met.

There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor people’s needs. The registered manger told us there were regular handover meetings between staff, so everyone had a clear understanding of the support people needed.

Relatives found the care package met people’s needs and staff followed the relevant guidance when supporting them. Relatives confirmed they valued the daily logs kept in people’s houses, which allowed them to see if there were any immediate updates.

Care plans contained positive behaviour support information; this included identifying triggers which impacted on people’s wellbeing and behaviours, as well as techniques for staff to use to reduce any behaviours which may challenge. Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of each person’s physical and mental health needs prior to delivering care. The assessments included information about communication, allergies, medical background, weight, dietary needs, mobility, memory and cognition.

The provider 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 were comfortable with staff. They and relatives agreed that staff were able to recognise and communicate changes in their needs.

Staff worked in partnership with health care professionals to provide the most effective care. Staff told us communication was effective and that they followed advice from healthcare professionals and felt comfortable seeking guidance whenever necessary.

One health care professional told us, “Working with Magnus was great, you can see how dedicated the staff are to supporting people.”

Care records included details about people's medical history and ongoing health needs. A record of appointments was kept and there was evidence of collaborative working with healthcare services.

People told us the support they received enabled them to live independently for longer in their own homes, which maximised their independence, choice and control.

They were supported to enjoy the diet and lifestyle they chose. Choice and control were prioritised from the outset by staff who had the time and interest to understand people’s needs.

Processes were in place to enable people to make informed decisions around their own well-being needs.

People’s care was regularly monitored to check that it was meeting their needs and to see if any improvements were needed.

Staff routinely monitored people’s care 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.

The registered manager stayed in touch with people and families regularly to ensure needs were well monitored. Staff confirmed they had sufficient time to update records and were clear on the expectation regarding leaving detailed, person-centred care notes. The registered manager regularly reviewed the systems and processes in the service to determine if improvements could be made.

People were supported to have maximum control over their lives and staff supported them in the least-restrictive way possible. People told us they were given choices about their care and treatment and staff respected their decisions.

Staff were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and understood people’s capacity and the need to obtain consent wherever possible.

Staff had received training regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA.