Courage Limited

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

We assessed the following quality statements: Assessing Needs and Consent to care and treatment. People received an assessment of their needs before receiving support from the service. However, this information was not always updated in people’s care plans when their needs changed. People were asked to consent to their care and told us staff respected their wishes. However, the systems in place did not always support this practice.

This service scored 71 (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 they met with staff before care commenced to discuss their care needs. One person’s relative said, “Someone came from Courage to do a risk assessment and care plan before they started in [Month] last year and they wrote lots of notes at the time.”

Staff told us people’s needs were assessed and this information was recorded in their care plan. However, the registered manager agreed the information gathered during the initial assessment was not always reviewed and updated in people’s care plans when people’s needs changed.

People’s needs were assessed before they received support from the service. However, when people’s needs changed the information was not always updated in people’s care plans and risk assessments. This meant we could not be assured staff had access to accurate, current information about people’s needs and how these should be met.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People told us staff asked for their consent when providing care and respected their wishes. One person's relative said, “I do hear them [staff] asking [person's name] for permission to do things.”

Staff told us they always asked for people’s consent before providing their support. They said they involved people in decisions about their care as much as they were able and discussed their needs with their representative if the person was not able to consent.

The system for recording people’s mental capacity and any decisions made in their best interest required improvement. Mental capacity assessments had taken place where there were concerns about people’s ability to make their own decisions. However, where it was deemed people lacked capacity, best interest decisions had not always been recorded. The system in place for people to record their consent and involvement with care arrangements was inconsistent. It was not always clear on what basis people’s relatives had been involved in decisions about their care as the provider had not always ensured the appropriate legal requirements were in place. There was a risk people were not being appropriately involved in planning how their care would be provided.