Deep Heart Care Wiltshire

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 the first assessment for this service since it registered on 6 October 2023. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The registered manager completed assessments prior to the service starting. We found assessments of needs were not accurately completed and efforts had not been made to verify information about people’s needs. This meant staff did not have accurate details of people’s needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. For example, some people told us they were not receiving the support they needed with nutrition. This was because staff were not aware of how to prepare simple meals. People said at times meals were burned or not cooked properly. We shared this feedback with the registered manager. The provider did not have effective systems to make sure staff were up to date with national legislation and evidence based good practice. Some of the provider’s documents referenced incorrect legislation.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. The registered manager told us they worked with various healthcare professionals, however, people’s care records did not reflect this. There had been a safeguarding incident raised because the service continued to visit a person despite being told by the local authority in a timely way to stop visits. No harm had come to the person, however, systems within the service did not promote collaboration with others.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Some people and relatives told us staff were not knowledgeable about people’s health needs. One relative said, “The carers are not always aware of what is wrong with [person], and I feel they should have a basic knowledge of what is wrong with people they are caring for.” Information on people’s health needs in care plans was not always accurate or was not available for staff. Staff had not been provided with specific training on health conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy and dementia.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People and relatives told us they did not always have a review of their care to make sure any changes of needs were identified and recorded. The registered manager told us they did not carry out any monitoring for people, but staff told us they were monitoring food and fluids for some people.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. The registered manager had not completed training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and had not followed the principles of the MCA in all cases. Where people lacked capacity, assessments had not been completed following the principles of the MCA. There was little evidence of the best interests process and who had been involved. Staff had been provided with training on the MCA and recognised the importance of obtaining consent from people to provide care.