Master Care

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

The service was effective. People’s needs had been holistically assessed and the service worked collaboratively with other professionals to ensure care was delivered in a way that achieved positive outcomes for people. People’s consent had been sought and they were supported to access health services to aid their wellbeing.

This service scored 0 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs had been assessed holistically and care plans developed. Care and support had been delivered in line with these plans, and in collaboration with other professionals, and people told us their needs were met. People told us their care and support needs had been discussed with them at the commencement of the service and regularly thereafter. One relative told us, ‘The service came out to see what we needed and we have no complaints; [family member] is well looked after.’ Another relative told us how the service, together with other professionals, made the arrangements for their family member to have support from Master Care and that they were happy with the care delivered. Feedback from professionals who worked with the service on a regular basis confirmed people received good quality care that met people’s holistic needs. One professional said, ‘Overall the service provided is of a good standard and we have received a number of positive feedback from service users.’ Staff told us people’s needs were assessed and accurate care plans developed which were kept updated. One staff member told us, ‘People’s care plans are consistently accurate, up to date and relevant. The service prioritises regular reviews and updates to ensure that individual’s needs are continually met. Care plans are tailored to reflect people’s unique requirements, preferences, and goals, and are developed in collaboration with the service users themselves, their families, and healthcare professionals.’ Care plans confirmed people’s needs had been holistically assessed and we saw that they contained enough information for staff to deliver care and support. They considered people’s strengths and they encouraged independence. Care plans contained respectful language that put the person in control of the care they received and we saw that these had been regularly reviewed.

People, and their relatives as appropriate, had been included in discussions around their care and how this was to be delivered. We saw that this was based on good practice guidance to keep people safe and to provide effective care. The people we spoke with, and their relatives, confirmed this. They gave us examples that demonstrated staff delivered care based on their training and good practice guidance and standards. Health professionals confirmed staff accepted advice and recommendations from them which improved the outcomes for those people receiving the service. Staff showed us they knew people’s needs well and what was important to them. We saw that care plans included information on what was important to people and what made their care individual to them. They covered all areas of people’s lives and included information on family and those close to them as appropriate. Care plans followed good practice and had been reviewed on a regular basis, with the people who used the service and those involved in their care as appropriate.

People received care and support from a small group of staff who knew them and their needs well. This meant people received person-centred care that was meaningful to them. The service worked closely and regularly with health professionals and this assisted in ensuring people’s care was consistent, joined up and coordinated. People, and their relatives, told us staff worked well together and communicated effectively which helped to ensure their family members consistently received the same level of care. They told us staff completed handovers between their shifts and that this was managed well. One relative told us, ‘There are about 6 different staff that come in. Each person introduces themselves and asks what [family member] needs and wants. All the carers are very good.’ Staff told us they worked well as a team and were committed to providing consistently good quality care based on training and professional development. One staff member said, ‘My experience working at Master Care has been positive overall. The team is supportive, and there is a strong focus on professional development and recognising hard work, which boosts morale. I would recommend the service to my own family because the supportive culture and commitment to quality care is evident.’ Health professionals reported the service worked well with them with the shared focus of providing good quality care and this was confirmed by our assessment. We saw many examples of where the service had worked with others to achieve positive outcomes for people.

The service supported people to access healthcare services as needed and provided care and support to maintain people’s health and wellbeing; the people we spoke with confirmed this. One relative told us, ‘Staff have rung up the community nurse and the GP at the surgery. They sort all that out and I have faith in them.’ Another relative told us how staff supported them to use the telephone to call healthcare professionals for their family member as they struggled with this. They said, ‘Staff are good. They help me as my memory is not so good. They also pick medication up for me.’ Health professionals reported the service sought their advice and recommendations and the records we viewed confirmed this.

We saw that people, and their relatives as appropriate, were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. This included at the start of the service and on a regular basis thereafter; people we spoke with confirmed this. One relative said, ‘We saw a manager, they came to meet me and my [family member]. So far so good. It’s all been very efficient. A manager rings every week to speak to my [family member] and to arrange cover for the next week.’ Staff and health professionals agreed people were involved in decisions about their care and staff told us people received regular reviews. This was confirmed by the records we viewed. We saw that people had the opportunity to not only give feedback on the service they received via surveys but via regular formal reviews of the care they received. We saw that their relatives were involved in these reviews as appropriate.

Consent to various aspects of the service had been sought from appropriate people and recorded. People told us staff asked them for their consent before delivering care and support tasks. Staff gave us examples of how they sought consent from the people they supported. One staff member said, ‘I seek people’s consent before giving care and I encourage them to make their own decisions during the care. I respect their choices.’ Health professionals agreed that staff sought people’s consent and that appropriate people were involved in making best interest decisions when required. The records we viewed confirmed people’s formal consent was sought and recorded. We saw that people were given the choice at to what aspects of the service they consented to. For example, if they preferred not to have their photograph taken and used on the service’s social media platforms, then they were given this choice which we saw was respected. People who used the service were also provided with information on advocacy services should they require it.