First Choice Medical Solutions 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 physical, mental health and social needs were holistically assessed, and that their care, treatment and support delivered in line with legislation. We check standards and evidence-based guidance to make sure people received care that was person centred. We assessed a total of eight quality statements from this key question. This key question has been rated requires improvement at the previous assessment on 28/11/2022. This meant some aspects of the service were not always effective. During our current assessment of this key question, we found people received effective care. People had their individual needs assessed and their care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. People were involved in discussions about their care and support and had choices about how their care was provided. People were asked to consent to their care and support. Consent was recorded and reviewed. The service had anti discriminatory processes in place to ensure there is no discrimination, including in relation to protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and support decisions. Technology and or equipment was used where appropriate to help people retain their independence.

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 told us the manager assessed their needs and then discussed how they would like their care to be provided. People told us they were fully involved in the assessment process and were consulted throughout the process.

The registered manager spoke in detail about the assessment process, and the depth of the assessment. People were central to the assessment. The level of detail contained within the assessment was impressive with all details recorded inncluding people's life history, preference as to who was important to them and what they wanted to achieve through the support provided.

Systems were in place to involve people in their assessments. Reviews were conducted on a regular basis and any changes required were actioned straight away. If there were any changes or a person went into hospital for example, a reassessment would be completed prior to the care service resuming. They did this following best practice, current guidance and in line with legislation.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them being involved throughout. People were supported to eat adequate nutritious food which reflected their preferences. A person told us “I love the banter, they ask me is it ok to support with personal care, I always say yes but joked with them what if I said no”

Staff told us they supported people in the way the person wanted to be supported, and priority was given to the persons wishes in all cases. They were offered choices in all aspects of their care delivery. The person was the central hub, and all the parts of their support all linked to that central hub. Peoples’ choices were always a priority, and the systems supported this approach.

People received care that was personalised to their individual needs following an assessment. People chose how and when the wanted to be supported.

People were positive about the way their care was provided in a collaborative way across services. This reduced the number of times they were asked the same questions by the different services. The service collaborated cohesively with professional partners, family members and any support services people had or attended for example projects or volunteering placements.

Feedback from professionals was positive. They told us because communication and record keeping was effective, they only had to share the information once and did not have to keep repeating it to different professionals and or services. The service operated two parts of the service, domiciliary care and supported living and had a range of processes that best monitored and gave oversight of both aspects of the service. “One professional told us they felt the wider management team and staff worked well together which meant people were enabled and it promoted their independence for example by working in the community.

Professional feedback was positive in relation to the management and care provision. For example professional told us the staff team knew people really well and worked with them to help meet people aspirations and challenge their abilities.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure the delivery of person centred care.

People told us the staff team supported them to retain their everyday living skills by enabling people to continue to do as much for themselves as possible. People were given information if they wanted to engage in community support groups or do some work or volunteering.

The manager told us that information is very important and never to assume what people want or not. People were given choices about what pastimes and activities they liked to participate in.

Systems and processes were established to record peoples’ preferences and to introduce new things that they may want to experience.

Peoples care and treatment was consistently monitored to help improve it. This helped to ensure that outcomes were consistent, and achieved what people aspired to achieve.

Professional feedback was positive and confirmed that the way the service monitored people’s expectations was effective. This also supported the management of maintaining clinical expectations and outcomes. Records reviewed confirmed this to be the case.

People’s abilities and skills, and life experiences were discussed with them and those involved in their care, to consider how people’s goals, ambitions and outcomes were planned and achieved. This was all documented in people’s support plans and these were reviewed to make sure these were still current.

People were supported to understand how to give consent to care or part of their care plan. Staff understood people had the right to refuse all or part of their support. Consent was kept under review. People told us they were asked to sign their care pllan to consent to being supported by care staff.

Staff understood the need to obtain and record peoples consent. Staff told us they always checked with people prior to supporting them with a task. If a person refused all or some of their care staff recorded this as part of the overall monitoring.

Consent was requested from people prior to commencement of the service and reviewed during care plan reviews. Staff were aware people had the right to refuse care or part of their support.