B24 Healthcare Solution Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff did not consistently meet the provider’s expectations in their approach toward caring for people. For example, 1 relative told us, “I was at my relative’s house when staff arrived, they kept on their outdoor coats during the whole visit. They prepared soup for my relative and stood over them while they ate it and were on their phones. Staff did not attempt to chat, we are not happy with them.” Another person told us they had been left in tears during support with personal care due to a staff member’s inappropriate behaviour. This was reported by the person and the provider took action related to the incident which reassured the person.

People experienced a lack of consistency in their care. One person told us, “I’d say half of them are really helpful and really good, they are fantastic and go out of their way to do anything for you. But, the other half are not so good.”

The provider treated people as individuals to make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care records captured people’s preferences and needs and included information about how they wished to be supported, including their likes and dislikes. Protected characteristics such as a person’s religion and disability were recorded. Where we received mixed feedback on whether staff followed this or not, we discussed this with the provider on where improvements could be made. For example, 1 person’s relative told us, “My relative has a care need of being supported with their anxiety. However, staff do not phone them when they are running late, and this increases their anxiety. Their care call has been anything between 07.30 and 10.30. If they received a phone call this would reduce their anxiety.” The care co-ordinator confirmed to us it was their expectation people would be contacted if care calls were running late.

Other feedback was positive, and 1 person told us, “The staff know what they are doing, I tell them and sometimes they have a question, but they have all the information on their phones.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care plans promoted people’s independence as much as possible. For example, 1 person’s care plan recorded, “I can wash my face independently.”

People’s care plans directed staff to involve people and offer them opportunities to make everyday decisions for themselves such as what they wanted to wear or eat and drink during the care call.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We contacted people and their relatives to explore whether staff responded to their immediate needs. We received mixed feedback. A few people felt communication between them and office staff needed to improve. For example, when they shared important information, this was not always shared with care staff which, on one occasion, had led to care staff attending a care call when the person was not at home.

Some people told us communication during care calls needed improvement. One person told us, “Sometimes there are communication difficulties. Yesterday, they made me a sandwich, and I asked for mustard on it, they spread it like butter, the staff had no idea, (it was so thick) it would have killed me.” Another person told us, “Most of the staff are pretty good, but there is a language problem, I have to keep explaining things to them.” We also received some positive feedback with 1 person telling us, “They are outstanding and meet my needs.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

There was a positive culture, and the provider valued their staff team. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and found the management team supportive. One staff member told us, “We have supervision every 3 months. We get asked how we are feeling and that kind of thing.” Some risk assessments were undertaken by the provider related to staff’s wellbeing, and this included any staff who were pregnant. However, lone working risk assessments had not been completed. The provider assured us these would be undertaken.