Fareni Lifecare 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

Peoples care needs had not been fully assessed, and most people did not have a care plan in place at the time of our the assessment. Care plans in place did not reflect peoples needs, and did not contain sufficient guidance for staff to follow. The provider did not have systems in place to monitor feedback from people, staff and relatives. The registered manager had limited knowledge of how to provide effective care, and staff had not received training around the Mental Capacity Act. However, people using the service told us staff respected their rights and wishes.

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.

People told us staff knew their needs well. We spoke with one staff member who told us they take pride in receiving compliments about the care they deliver to people. People were supported by a small team of staff allocated to them, to ensure consistency in care. This meant staff were able to get to know people very well. However, peoples needs were not documented. This meant should their regular care staff member be unable to provide their care, it would be more difficult for someone else to support them smoothly.

We saw that people had not been assessed before care was provided to them, and most people did not have a care plan in place. We asked the registered manager about this, and they told us they plan to implement thorough and up to date care plans for people, with regular reviews when things change.

There was no process in place for ensuring peoples needs were assessed and reviewed to maximise the effectiveness of peoples care. The registered manager told us they plan to implement monthly care plan and risk reviews for people to ensure staff have access to up to date information.

People told us they were satisfied with the level of care they received. However, most people receiving care from the service had not been fully assessed. We were therefore not assured the provider had sufficient understanding of whether the care they were delivering was meeting peoples needs. People we spoke with told us they had complex health conditions, such as diabetes and degenerative neurological conditions. These had not been assessed by the service.

The registered manager told us they were aware that most peoples care needs had not been assessed. We asked them to undertake full reviews of peoples care needs and any associated risks in response to our findings.

There was a poor process in place for assessing peoples needs. The registered manager relied on staff to learn peoples needs over time, and whilst they were already in receipt of care. This meant people were at risk of receiving poor care, or care which did not fully meet their health and care needs.

People told us the service worked well with other professionals such as their GP or Psychotherapist. One person needed support from a specialist nurse, and they told us staff contact them for advice and support as required.

A staff member told us they worked closely with the local GP surgery, and they knew them well. As peoples needs were not always documented within care records, we were unsure how the service would safely and correctly share people needs with relevant services. The registered manager told us they plan to take action to improve this.

The service did not provide us with contact details for any services they worked in partnership with, such as GP, other healthcare professionals or social workers in order for us to seek feedback. However, the registered manager told us they communicate peoples care needs with other services verbally as required. They also told us they use care records to support this. As most people did not have a care record or needs assessment in place, we were not assured this process was robust enough to ensure other services were fully aware of important aspects of peoples care. This risk was further increased as the care records which were in place were of a poor standard, and did not fully reflect the persons health and care needs.

There was not a robust process in place for sharing information with other services. We were not assured that important information relating to peoples health and care needs would be accurately shared without written care documents being in place. This placed people at risk of receiving care from other services which did not meet their needs. This risk was further increased, as some information in care plans we reviewed was inaccurate.

People we spoke with told us the service worked in partnership with them and their relatives to maintain their health and well being. People spoke highly of how staff communicated with health professionals when needed.

One staff member told us they regularly speak with people and their families to ensure their health and well being is maintained. The registered manager told us they have built good relationships with the local GP surgery.

We found processes to monitor and record peoples healthcare needs to not be robust. Peoples care records did not reflect the input they needed. Where specialist advice had been given in relation to peoples health and care needs, this was not always documented for staff to refer to. However, staff were able to describe how and when they would contact health professionals appropriately.

People and their relatives had not consistently been involved in the creation or review of their care records. We received mixed feedback from people about their involvement in planning their care. One person told us they had been receiving care for two months yet still not have a care plan in place. Other people told us they had been involved in a review of their care plan.

The registered manager told us they are now aware of the shortfalls at the service, and they took some action to address this during the course of our assessment. A care supervisor was recruited towards the end of the assessment, and would be responsible for ensuring every person receiving care has a complete and accurate care record in place, in order to effectively monitor peoples care needs and outcomes.

The process for ensuring peoples care and treatment met their needs and had good outcomes was not effective. This was because there was a lack of documented assessments of the care people required. This significantly increased the risk of people receiving either a poor standard of care, or care which did not meet their needs.

All of the people we spoke with told us staff respected their wishes, and always asked their consent whilst providing care. People told us staff respected their homes and asked consent to open new boxes of consumable items when old ones ran out.

Staff and leaders were able to describe how they ensure peoples wishes and choices are respected. This included how they would support people living with dementia to make choices.

Staff had not received any training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). At the time of the assessment, the service did not support people living with impaired capacity to make their own decisions, however were able to appropriately explain how they would apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act if required.