Evolve Supporting Prospects

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 identified a breach of the legal regulations. We found people’s support plans were not personalised and did not evidence their involvement. Some of the people we spoke with said they had not or could not remember being consulted with about their needs and preferences. There was no information to show people’s mental capacity had been assessed or that relevant others had been consulted about how people wished to be supported. A 'service user guide' advising people of the assessment process was not followed. This stated the assessment process would be completed by senior staff and actively encourage the person and those important to them to take part to help personalise their plan. However, we saw no evidence of this.

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.

We received a mixed response from people and their relatives about their involvement in completing a needs assessment. Not everyone we spoke with said they had been involved in discussions outlining their needs and preferences and knew this information had been used to develop their care plan. Comments included; “There is a book that the staff sign in and out of, but I don’t know about a care plan”, “[Relative] has a care plan, but I can’t remember having any meetings about it” and “Yes, they discuss things with me and ask me if I am happy with my care. They come to my house to talk about the plan.” What we were told does not reflect information provided within the Service User Guide, which states during the assessment process senior staff would actively encourage the person and those people important to them to take part to help personalise their plan.

Staff told us they had access to information about people’s assessed needs. Staff told us assessments were completed by managers, but staff input was valued. Staff said they would inform managers if they felt people’s assessed needs had changed and this would be reflected in their care plan.

Information about the initial assessment and care planning process was detailed in the service user guide given out to people when joining the service. However, the process outlined was not followed. People’s assessments and plans were not personalised and did not evidence their involvement. There was also no information to show capacity and consent had been considered or sought in relation to people’s care and support. This meant there was a breach of regulation, Person Centred Care.

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.

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