Errand Plus and Personal Services

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

There had been some improvement around the effectiveness of the service but we still found concerns in the review of peoples risk assessments and care plans. The service did not always note areas of improvement or offer a response where concerns were identified in feedback from people using the service. People did feel in control of their care needs and the service worked well with other partners.

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.

All the people we spoke with explained how they had in depth initial assessments carried out and that their care plans were reviewed regularly. Leaders within the service check in with them on a regular basis either over the telephone or face to face to ensure they were happy with their care needs.

The Registered Manager told us how assessments are carried out to identify individuals needs. The staff told us how these are read regularly and if they noted any discrepancies then they escalated to leaders within the service. However we reviewed care plans and noted discrepancies that hadn’t been picked up on.

The service uses an electronic care recording system, we reviewed 8 peoples care records within the service and we found some inconsistencies and inaccurate risk assessments that hadn’t been picked up on by the service.

Everyone expressed how they felt in full control of their care needs and had access to their care plans to Look at them when they wanted too

Staff we spoke with said they reviewed care plans frequently and highlighted concerns straight away although we noted discrepancies in our own checks of them. Staff told us how they ensure all medical notes are together for all health care professionals to review when visiting the individual.

The service completes feedback forms for people within the service, however we were not assured that appropriate action was always taken when feedback forms were completed. Daily notes that were recorded where often repetitive and did not reflect the care that had been provided. 1 person required thickener in their drinks to help with their swallowing and there was no record of this happening.

People we spoke with felt they were supported with GP appointments and liaising with the local authority. One individual in the service had requested more support from the service to access the community and this was being discussed at the time with the local authority.

All the staff we spoke with expressed that they felt they had a good working relationship with other services and that they worked well together to have the best desired outcome for the people they were supporting.

We spoke to 3 partners who work within the local authority. They all expressed that they worked well with the service and felt the service had improved. They felt the service was responsive and tried to put the most adequate support in for people using the service but had to keep raising concerns of staff wearing masks and the barriers this caused to communication.

We reviewed the services communications log and it evidenced communication to other services within a timely manner. However there was miscommunication between services that resulted in a situation of an evening visit suddenly being stopped with no explanation to the person using the service who was having several visits a day. This could have left that individual vulnerable and showed a lack of communication.

People felt supported to eat and drink appropriately. One Person was wanting to lose weight and said the staff were helping them with exercises, encouragement and motivation on their visits to achieve this.

The staff expressed to us what they would do if they were concerned about an individual who was refusing food or eating poorly

We reviewed care records and they evidenced that people were supported with phone calls to healthcare professionals that were involved in the individuals care.

People felt they were supported with setting personal goals and the service helped them achieve their goals. They felt the service asked them for feedback on a regular basis.

Staff informed us how they monitored people’s health within the service. They all stated that they would seek medical advice if they had concerns over an individual’s presentation, depending on the severity this would either be a phone call through to the individuals GP practice or more urgent medical advice seeked by 111 or 999. They assured us that they knew how to seek medical advice appropriately.

We reviewed the feedback forms that were given to people using the service and we were not assured that appropriate action was always taken. One individual using the service expressed on their feedback form, there were concerns over the time management of some of the carers visiting them. At the end of the feedback where the service recorded the action taken, none was written on the form. This did not assure us that the service always listened to peoples concerns or offered feedback to them appropriately.

People in the service felt they were always asked what they wanted and supported they needed and were always given choices around their care needs. People felt in control of their care and consent was always gained.

When talking to the registered manager he explained that if any person had a lasting power of attorney (a legal document that allows a person to give trusted individuals the power to make decisions on their behalf) they made sure they had a copy in place and on file before any decisions were made. Speaking to the staff they stated that they all obtain consent before any support is offered. They expressed how they are in people’s own homes and that they must always be respectful and let the service user be in control. The staff explained how individuals could make certain decisions and family members supported individuals with more significant decisions. The service have been unable to evidence any best interest decisions having been carried out when people in the service lacked capacity.

There were inadequate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place and the service couldn’t evidence to us that they knew which people in the service could and could not make decisions. There were no regular reviews of mental capacity assessments to ensure they were accurate and up to date.