We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bevris Support on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bevris Support, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People received a consistently good service that was safe and effective. Staff were kind and caring, knew people well and had a good understanding of their personalities as well as their health and social care needs.
People, their relatives and care managers had been fully involved in the assessment and planning of their care before they started using the service. A care plan had been developed with each person detailing their likes, dislikes, preferences and care needs.
Consent had been sought before any care had been delivered in line with legal requirements and people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.
Staff treated people and their relatives with kindness, dignity and respect. People’s privacy was protected and confidential information was stored securely. People were supported and encouraged to remain independent and do as much as possible for themselves. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests and take part in activities they enjoyed. The provider had organised and invited people who used the service to social events to help widen peoples social circle.
Steps had been taken to make sure people were safe. Risks to people had been assessed and minimised in the least restrictive way. Staff had access to protective clothing such as gloves and aprons and had completed training in infection control.
Each person had their own team of safely recruited and trained staff who had a good understanding of their needs. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and had completed the training they needed to meet people’s assessed needs. Management and staff worked in collaboration with other stakeholders such as health and social care professionals, care managers and people’s relatives.
A complaints procedure was in place for people to follow. Although no complaints had been received there was a system in place for complaints to be recorded and responded to.
The service met characteristics of Good in all areas more information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 16 July 2016).
Why we inspected: We inspected the service as part of our inspection schedule methodology for ‘Good’ rated services.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
Regus House, Herons Way is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to both adults and children who live in their own homes. The agency is based on the outskirts of Chester and currently provides support to three people who have a range of complex health and support needs.
There was a registered manager in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service has not been previously inspected by Care Quality Commission.
People were protected from the risk of abuse or harm. Family members confirmed that their relatives were kept safe. The service had processes in place to safeguard people from different forms of abuse. Staff had been trained in safeguarding children and adults. Staff were confident that they could raise any matters of concern with the provider or the registered manager and that they would be addressed appropriately.
Risk assessments were completed for each person supported, and identified any risks to their health and safety. Assessments gave clear information to guide staff on how to minimise risks to people and themselves when providing care and support.
The service had robust recruitment procedures in place, which ensured that applicants were suitable for the job role. All staff received training to enable them to fulfil their roles which included essential subjects such as moving and handling, safeguarding people and medication awareness training. Staff were well supported through regular supervisions and team meetings.
The manager and staff showed a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Support protocols identified how people’s capacity had been assessed in line with the principles of the MCA. Staff were able to clearly describe how people were involved in making decisions in their day to day support and the importance of gaining consent to care. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This ensured that people’s rights were protected.
Discussions were held with family members and people were referred onto the appropriate service when concerns about their health or wellbeing were noted. Staff worked well with external health and social care professionals to make sure people received the care and support they needed.
Family members told us that staff were kind, caring and patient in their approach and it was evident through discussions that they took time to get to know people well. Staff understood the importance of maintaining people’s privacy, dignity and independence and staff respected individual’s decisions regarding their lifestyle choices.
Staff understood how to meet the needs of those individuals they supported. The service ensured that where possible, staff supported the same people. This enabled people, their family members and staff to build good working relationships and develop confidence in the support provided.
Support protocols were in place for people and reviews were completed to ensure that the needs of people were sufficiently met by the registered provider.
The registered provider’s complaints procedure was robust and accessible to people and their relevant others. Family members told us that they had never had reason to raise a complaint but were confident their concerns would be acted upon.
People and staff described the registered manager as ‘approachable and supportive’. Quality assurance audits were undertaken by the registered provider to ensure that they provided a service that was effective and meeting people’s needs. The registered provider understood the importance of seeking feedback from people and their family members. An annual survey had been designed and arrangements were in place to send this out.