Wishes Care and Support Yorkshire Ltd- Richmond

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 inspection for this service. 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. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed before they started to use the service. Some people told us they were involved in the planning of their care. However, care records did not evidence who had been involved. The provider told us they were reviewing all care records and this information would be included.

The service delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People told us managers and staff regularly asked them about the care they received. People lived in their own homes and could decide what they ate. They told us staff knew their preferences and their nutritional needs were met.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Records showed that where required staff had contacted other agencies involved in people’s care. Staff told us there was good teamwork and staff supported and helped each other. One staff member said, “I really like everything. I like how the staff are so nice to each other and it’s a really nice group.”

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Care records identified any medical conditions people had and detailed health professionals involved in people’s care. However, the records did not always give detail to guide staff on how the medical conditions impacted the person or any support they may need with this.

The service monitored people’s care and treatment to improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Records were kept of care and support provided at each visit. A staff member told us, “Management watch how we are with clients, that we are fulfilling their wants and wishes, check meds and discuss with the client if they are happy with the carer and the care provided.” Spot checks of care and support were recorded and included people’s views about their care and support. However, there was no formal mechanism for review or oversight of the spot checks. The provider told us they were going to include this in their review of audits and oversight.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always evidence people’s rights had been respected when delivering care and treatment. Care records did not evidence the requirements of the MCA were being met. They did not refer to capacity, consent or best interest decisions. They did not indicate if the person or someone with legal authority had been involved in decisions or reviewing the care and support provided.