Versita 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to consent.

This service scored 62 (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 assessments did not always appropriately consider the full range of people’s relevant diverse needs. Not everyone felt the provider and staff were effective at understanding the full range of each person’s care needs. People's needs were assessed with them prior to them being accommodated and staff spent time with them, to understand their needs. However, the provider had not always fully taken into account people’s past history in relation to all aspects of their care planning and understanding of people’s care needs. The provider had not always identified during their assessment, that people’s care needs were more complex than could be met currently. They had not always fully considered all aspects of the physical environment people would be living in to enable them to support people effectively and safely. However, people were involved in their assessments and regular reviews of their care. People’s views about their care were sought.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them. People’s records showed they participated in creating their care plans. Staff had access to best practice guidance about how to support people. People supported by the service were not living significant distances from the areas where they grew up, which enabled them to have regular contact with their families. People's nutrition and dietary needs had been identified with them and met.

The service worked across teams and services to support people. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives. Some felt there had been good working across teams, whilst others felt there was a lack of joined up care in the provision of people’s care. Staff worked closely with a wide range of health care professionals and multi-disciplinary teams in the provision of people's care. Staff collaborated with external teams to gain a shared understanding and consistent approach to the delivery of people's care. Staff working within each team supporting people were seen to communicate well and work closely together.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. The service supported people to live healthier lives. People with a learning disability did not have hospital passports containing personalised information about them as per good practice guidance. Whilst the provider told us in the event people were admitted to hospital for planned or unplanned care staff accompanied them to support them. The use of hospital passports promote people’s independence and dignity. Relatives reported their loved one's physical health care needs were met well by staff. People were encouraged to undertake sports and activities of their choice. People had their weight monitored and some were supported to go to the gym. The provider had input and guidance from a nurse about people's physical health.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to improve it. The provider and people told us of outcomes which had been achieved, such as people participating in work. People’s care plans detailed their care needs and associated goals and their long term aims and objectives. However, there was a lack of written evidence of how the goals set were monitored or the anticipated timescales for their achievement, or how people would know if they had been achieved. This has been fed back to the provider for their consideration.

Consent was not always obtained or recorded in line with relevant guidance and legislation. The provider was not able to demonstrate a person who had capacity to consent to their care plan had done so. Staff had restrained them without evidence the correct legal processes had been followed in order to uphold and protect their human rights. The provider’s restraint policy also required people to give consent for any use of restraint unless they lacked capacity. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions about their care and the restrictions in place, the provider had not obtained written evidence as required to show legal processes had been followed. The provider took action to obtain copies of this evidence after we brought this to their attention. Some people had been asked to sign their consent to their care and support, although they could only make very simple day to day decisions or were subject to DoLS. People had not always been presented with information in an easy read format where required to aid their understanding when they were asked for their consent. However, staff had completed MCA training. People’s care plans detailed their communication needs if or when they did not use verbal communication.