TrustBridge 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

People were involved in assessments that informed their care plans and risk assessments. Staff had access to people’s care plans and associated records on mobile electronic devices. People’s consent was obtained in line with the Mental Capacity act (MCA).

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Some people told us they could sometimes struggle to understand what staff said to them if they had some hearing loss. However, on the whole people felt understood and involved. People felt involved in discussions about their care plans and risk assessments. One relative told us, “[Name of person] has always been involved with care plans, before the care started, we made sure she was included.”

Leaders told us people’s needs were assessed when they first joined the service and relatives were invited to be part of this assessment if appropriate. Leaders told us people were asked about their care after the first few weeks and if any changes were needed. They said people’s care was subsequently reviewed every 6 months or more frequently should the person’s care needs change. Staff told us people’s needs were assessed and care plans and risk assessments were reviewed to ensure people’s information was kept up to date. They felt care plans and risk assessments provided enough information to help them provide safe care to people.

An electronic care planning system was used record and update care plans, risk assessments and associated records. Care staff accessed this through mobile devices and were able to update people’s records when in their homes.

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.

Most people told us staff asked them for their consent before providing care. However, 1 relative told us this was inconsistent with some staff. They felt some staff gave instructions rather than asking and not all staff gave the person time to process what had been requested.

Leaders told us people’s consent to their care was discussed with them and guidance on seeking people’s consent was included in people’s care plans. Staff told us they asked people if they were ready for their care before they started to provide it. They told us if a person declined their care, they would respect their wishes. Staff told us care plans and risk assessments contained information on people’s capacity to understand their care decisions.

Guidance for staff on seeking people’s consent was included in their care plans. The provider had a policy regarding the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We saw where they had followed this to assess whether a person was able to understand decisions relating to their care. Where they were not, a decision had been made in their best interests with the involvement of their relatives.