B & S Healthcare Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were person centred and included information about the person including their daily routines, likes and dislikes, and health care needs. Care staff confirmed they had access to the care plans to guide them on what the person needed and how they wanted to be supported.

People were supported by consistent staff that knew them well. Staff told us this was important and enabled them to get to know the people they were supporting. People confirmed they were supported by consistent staff.

People and their relatives told us their received care and support that was tailored to their individual needs. A person told us, I was involved in creating it (care plan) and am always consulted about my current needs.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The management team had oversight of people’s packages of care to ensure support was delivered in line with their agreed funding and what people had paid for. Consistent staff supported people ensuring continuity of care from staff that were familiar to them.

The management team supported people to gain additional support when required to ensure care was coordinated and responsive to people’s needs. For example, making referrals to health professionals to ensure safe and effective equipment was in place to support people to continue to live in their own homes. They had also supported a person and their family to liaise with commissioners where people’s needs had changed and needed additional support.

Feedback was positive from health and social care professionals. Comments included, “I have worked with people who has had carers visiting them in their homes providing care. I have been in the homes when carers have visited, they have always been caring and professional.” Another professional told us, “They are passionate about providing high quality care to all service users.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider demonstrated compliance with the Accessible Information Standard. This standard expects providers to have assessed and meet people's communication needs, relating to a person's disability, impairment or sensory loss and supporting them as they moved from one service to another. For example, where a person required larger print due to a visual impairment, their care plan was provided in a larger font to support accessibility. Where people spoke a different language, the provider told us in their annual provider return they used an interpreter to ensure information was communicated effectively.

People confirmed they had access to their care plans and participated in regular care reviews to ensure the information was current and meeting their needs. People’s care plans included information that supported good communication such as hearing aids and glasses.

People had access to a service user guide, which clearly described the service provided and what staff could and could not do. The provider’s web site provided information on how care was funded and the help they could get this if eligible.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People confirmed they participated in care reviews, and their views were listened to. Comments included, “The staff are always responsive to care needs and any queries,” and “I am very happy with the carers; they are brilliant. They are friendly, really lovely. I have no complaints or problems.”

People were provided with a complaint policy as part of the service user guide. This included how they could escalate their concerns if these were not responded to by the provider. This included key contacts for the local authority and the ombudsman if they were not satisfied with the provider’s response.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The registered manager told us, “Each service user is treated as an individual without assumptions, and care plans are tailored to reflect their unique needs and protected characteristics. Our companion service allows ad hoc support for appointments, ensuring access to necessary healthcare.” It was evident there was a commitment to ensure people could access the care and treatment when they needed it, working alongside the person and their families and health and social care professionals.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People’s diverse needs and equality characteristics were discussed prior to using the service. These included their religious beliefs, disabilities and cultural preferences and were incorporated into their plan of care.

The registered manager told us that foot care could be organised for people where this was needed. This was because the care staff were not allowed to complete tasks relating to the cutting of finger and toenails.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of the inspection no one was receiving end of life care. Staff told us copies of people’s ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions were kept in their home and with their GP. Care plans had a section to record whether there were any advanced care plan and any funeral arrangements in place including the contact details for the funeral directors.

Staff had received suitable training in end of life care, and guidance was in place if people needed this. Staff would work with the person, the palliative care specialists and community nurses to support people with end-of-life care and a clear plan of care put in place involving the person and their family.