We Care Chorlton

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

People told us they had access to their care plans and felt involved in their care. The provider acknowledged further work was required to ensure care plans were both up to date and accurate. The care provided focused on completing specific tasks agreed in people’s care plans. Where poor scheduling wasn’t impacting on the care provided, people mostly reported good outcomes. People and their families felt able to contact the office and overall, the communication was good. Staff also told us they received good support from the office staff. Staff worked in partnership with other services and people were supported to access healthcare when required. There was mixed feedback from 5 social workers who had experience of working with the service. Some of the feedback provided by them was very good and some of it was very poor. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent before providing care and received training to support their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. People’s communication needs were assessed and understood by staff.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People had access to their care plans and they felt involved in planning their care. They told us, ‘Oh yes, they do and always ask me. I have a new one here in my bedroom that we did together’ and ‘Yes, they understand my [relatives] needs and I was involved in the care plan.’ We also received feedback about poor timekeeping which impacted on people’s experience of care.

The provider acknowledged further work was required to ensure people’s care plans were both up to date and accurately reflected their needs.

Assessments were not always capturing people’s needs accurately and they were not always up to date.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance. Feedback we received from people was mostly positive.

Staff told us they had the training and guidance to enable them to carry out their roles.

The provider ensured relevant best practice guidance was available in care plans and training was provided to meet specific needs. Guidance and risk assessments for people assessed as being at increased risk of choking needed improvement.

People told us they dealt independently with other health professionals as and when they needed to. When input from staff was required they were positive about the input provided.

The staff we spoke to were mostly positive about the support they received from the office. Communication was good and the office were responsive to their needs. They told us, ‘The office team are very helpful. Yes, I feel valued and they listen to me and respond to any concerns.’

We received very mixed feedback from 5 social workers. Two were very positive and told us, ‘The care team is always accessible and I have been able to arrange joint visits in instances where concerns were raised by the family’ and ‘On all occasions they’ve shown professionalism, empathy, respect etc towards clients and ourselves. Two had a negative experience. They told us, ‘There were a number of concerns I did have with this citizen, the time keeping of the carers on the 4 visits were 45-60 minutes later than the support plan. The list of tasks the carer had missed out some important tasks in the support plan, for example, checking the citizen was wearing the pendant on morning visit. The record completed by the carers by hand were difficult to read especially if they had refused food on the visit’ and ‘During the resolution meeting [staff] were in great denial that anything was wrong with the care they were providing to the citizen, [staff] consistently tried to make excuses for their poor care, much to the surprise of the citizen's family.’

We saw evidence of multidisciplinary meetings convened to resolve safeguarding concerns. People, families, staff and external professionals all worked in partnership to find solutions.

People told us staff informed family if they had concerns and either family or the staff would contact the GP if required.

The Nominated individual told us they respected people’s choices. They encouraged people but were careful not to offend people. We Care Chorlton signposted people to available services including foodbanks and they also used an emergency fund for people who needed electricity or gas, for example.

Care plans were task focused and were determined by people’s individual needs. Care plans contained contact details for relevant professionals and We Care Chorlton had protocols in place to ensure the local council was contacted if any issues needed to be escalated. There was no specific focus on supporting people to live healthier lives.

Systems were in place to gather regular feedback about people’s experience of care. The provider agreed to update these and acknowledged they had not always been effective in tracking people’s experience of the service.

We reviewed 10 care plans and people had clear goals set in relation to the core care tasks arranged to meet their immediate needs. Regular calls were made each month to gain feedback on people’s experiences. This regular contact was very positive although they had not always been effective at picking up on key areas of concern. This included ensuring care plans and any key risks were up to date.

Staff asked for consent before providing care. Families told us, ‘Yes, they always check with [relative] before they do anything’ and ‘Yes, they do speak to her before they do anything and they are very gentle.’

Staff told us they had received training and understood the need to request consent and to report to the office if people were refusing care.

People consented to their care plans. Staff received training and a policy was available to support staff.