Acerta24

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 9 August 2024 (assessment visit 28 March 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

   Relatives told us they felt they and their family members were safe and were protected from the risk of abuse. The service had appropriate safeguarding procedures. Staff told us they received regular training and they knew how to safeguard people from abuse and the processes that should be followed where concerns arose.

   Assessments of people’s needs and any risks were carried out and formed part of the care plan. Relatives told us these care plans were reviewed appropriately and drawn up together with themselves. Risk management strategies were in place as part of the assessment and support planning process. This meant risks to people and to staff were minimised and people’s care was appropriately delivered to meet their needs.

   There were robust recruitment practices in place that meant new staff were safely recruited. There were sufficient staff levels to meet people's needs. Good levels of training and supervision support were provided for staff.

   Infection control was well managed. Effective policies were in place and staff practices monitored to ensure standards were met.

   Appropriate policies and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely. Comprehensive training was available for staff on the safe administration of medicines. This together with appropriate supervision and monitoring meant when required people received their medicines, it was administered safely and staff had clear guidance to follow.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   At the point of referral to Acerta 24, the registered manager requested from commissioners a detailed report on the needs of the person referred to this service provider. Prior to people receiving a service the registered manager met with the person and their relatives to assess their needs and identify the level of support they required. Exactly how the support could best be provided was discussed with people and their relatives. After this, care plans were drawn up and agreed with people. Needs and risks were built into people’s care plans. Reviews were held regularly at least every 6 months or earlier if people’s needs changed. We noted on the people’s files we inspected that consent forms had been signed and agreed by people and their relatives.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   People received care from staff who were kind and caring. People and their families had the opportunity to be involved in decisions about their care and support and creating their care plans. People were supported to have choice and control and make decisions about how their support was provided. They were encouraged and helped by staff to do as much as they could for themselves, to maintain their independence. People were supported to understand their rights and how the service would make sure these were respected.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   The provider ensured people had a full assessment before any support service was offered. This ensured people’s needs could be met as effectively as possible. These assessments were used to develop plans of care to guide staff in how to support people. This had ensured people received care and support that met their individual needs and reflected their choices and preferences. The provider asked people for feedback in different ways, which included regular care reviews, surveys and family meetings. The staff team were aware of potential barriers to positive engagement and individual challenges people may face in providing feedback on their care. Staff listened to people and tailored their care and support as people's needs changed or their preferences to care changed.