AMG Care Services Ltd

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment of the Effective key question for this service. The rating for this key question is good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed 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.

The service completed initial assessments of people’s needs in person. The care plans did not always provide a full assessment of people’s needs. However, they gave good information about people’s life history, interests and communication needs. The care plans were regularly reviewed involving people and their relatives. During our assessment the service acknowledged there were some gaps and started to address this. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s needs and knew where to find information about people’s needs. Staff said changes to people’s needs were updated in the care plan and through communication on the secure communication app they used. One staff member told us, “Any changes come up on our phones, we have to tick to say read”. People and their relatives told us staff knew their care needs and care plans were regularly reviewed. A relative said “(Person) has had an assessment which is regularly updated, no problem to increase their level of care if indicated.”

The service supported people with different health conditions, whilst staff knew people well and how to support them with their conditions this was not always clearly documented in people’s individual care plans or risk assessments. Staff completed daily records of what activities and tasks had been completed and general observations of the person. There was a lack of guidance for staff to follow if a person’s health changed and what signs and symptoms to look out for. We raised this with the service during our assessment, the care manager started to address this straight away. We did not find anyone had come to harm because of this. Following our feedback the service provided examples of updated detailed risk assessment relating to people’s specific health needs. People and their relatives told us staff supported them with their health conditions as and when needed. One relative told us “(Person) is diabetic and a carer noticed a mark on his foot so we showed the District Nurse, who visits daily to give (person) their Insulin and they kept an eye on it.”

The service used a secure communication app on their mobile phones so staff could share information with each other. Information could be updated in care plans and was visible to staff on their mobile phones. The system prompted staff when there had been changes. For example, one person recently had new compression stockings; a staff member met with the district nurse who showed the staff how to fit them correctly for the person. This information with the training links from the district nurse could then be shared via the care plan electronically. The service was competent in making timely referrals to other services such as district nurses and occupational therapists. People and their families were involved in decisions about their care. Staff let people know directly if they were delayed for visits. People and their relatives normally arranged healthcare appointments and notified the service of changes. However, if people needed help with appointments staff supported. One person said, “The carers would contact GP/Nurse, if necessary, they come in and do what they have to do then take time to talk to me, very concerned once as I was out of breath so wanted to contact a Dr or my son, always check if there are any other jobs to do.”

The service supported people with different health conditions. Staff recognised people wanted to have control over their own lives. Staff supported people to go out and access the community when they wanted. A staff member told us they exercised with one person to an online fitness video, this helped to support the person with their physical and mental wellbeing. People and their relatives told us they were supported when they wanted to be with going out, walking or exercising. One relative told us “Carers do sit down aerobics with (person) and they are definitely more agile now.”

The service routinely monitored people’s care to ensure it met their needs and wishes. Care was reviewed in various way by telephone, in person and via email. People and their relatives could review their visits on a secure portal they could log into. Care plans were set up to include outcomes for people. However, this section was not routinely used to reflect this. From talking with staff and people/relatives it was evident people were being supported to achieve what they wanted.

The service asked people about the care they wanted at each visit. For example, where one person said they had already carried out their own care that morning, staff respected this and supported with other tasks as the person wanted. People’s care plans and care reviews were signed by people to say they agreed with the support recorded for them. Where necessary the provider had the relevant information about lasting power of attorneys or the local authority court of protection team who could act on people’s behalf. People and their relatives told us staff sought their consent before supporting them. One person said, “Consent always sought before any personal care is given.” However, the service was not completing Mental Capacity Assessments and Best Interest decisions for people who could not consent to their care. This was an area of concern we identified during our last assessment in April 2024. Following our feedback during the assessment the service acted on this and provided us with evidence of a completed Mental Capacity assessment, clearly evidencing how a decision had been reached.