Biliv Care 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.

This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 wanted to ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment by working in partnership with people and how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. However, care plans did not always fully reflect some people’s physical needs. People and their relatives felt fully involved with their care planning which they said met their individual needs. Relatives told us they were kept informed around changes to their loved one’s needs and also involved in decisions about their care and support.

Staff completed training around person centred care and it was clear from conversations with staff that the people they supported meant a great deal to them. Staff explained how any changes in people’s needs were escalated to them which helped make sure the care and support they provided was consistently person centred. One staff member said, “The app works great, any change in support needs is sent from the group chat and there are notes in the app. We find it easier if any changes in medication or food management, fluid intake whatever you do for the client is put in the chat note and we also read the notes when the last carer left the client. You tend to find out if there are any changes before you get to the client.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, and worked with health and social professional to make sure care was joined-up, flexible and supported, as much as practicably possible, people’s choice and continuity of care.

People and their relatives told us having the same care staff providing support meant the care was consistent and met individual needs making it a more person centred approach to caring for people. The provider knew and recognised the importance of regular staff visiting people and tried to accommodate this with people as much as they could.

People told us they received the care they needed at the times they needed it. We were told staff had a good understanding of people’s health and support needs. The provider was aware of the diverse social care needs of the communities they supported and made sure they had the necessary processes in place to deliver that co-ordinated continuity of care to people living in those communities.

Staff had completed their corporate induction and received appropriate support from the provider through continued team meetings and supervisions. People’s needs had been reviewed although there had been one occasion where a change in needs for 1 person had not been communicated in a timely way to their social worker. However, the provider explained they had learnt from this and had meetings with staff to make sure any changes in people’s support needs was communicated back to them as quickly as possible.

The provider worked well with partner agencies and demonstrated their effectiveness through working in partnership with the local authority and health services when continuing with the provision of care for people after their discharge from hospital.

The provider was aware of the requirement to supply, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People told us they were happy with the information they received and confirmed it was in a way they understood.

Improvements were needed to ensure information was accessible and the need for accessible information considered and documented in care plans. Two people who received support had a learning disability but there was no record to demonstrate that the need to provide information in an alternative format had been considered. Whilst this had no impact on those people and they were able to contribute to their care planning and decisions, the provider recognised the need for improvements in this area and agreed to address this.

People and their relatives knew how to access the health and care records via the provider’s app. The provider confirmed if people wanted information in a different format to suit their communication needs or preferences, this would be provided.

Pre assessments identified whether people had any specific communication needs. People’s care plans provided a break down of the number of visits they would receive in line with their support needs and what staff were required to do within that time scale.

The provider had processes for people to share feedback and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, the provider’s complaints policy was very lengthy, inaccurate and contained information that was out of date. The provider told us they would review their complaints policy to make sure it was tailored to their service.

The provider investigated complaints in a timely way and had apologised where errors had been identified. Improvements were needed to ensure it was clear what learning had taken place and actions taken to improve

People and relatives told us they knew how and who to contact about any concerns or issues they might have. People and their relatives all said they were confident the provider would deal with their concerns promptly. One person told us, “I would have no hesitation in contacting [registered manager] if I needed to raise anything.”

People did feel listened to and most of those we had spoken with had been given the opportunity to give feedback on the quality of the service they received from the provider. People who had raised issues or concerns with the provider all told us they had been addressed in a timely way and resolved to their satisfaction.

The provider told us they would make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and their relatives told us they would contact the provider if they required support to access any care services to receive treatment when required. Staff would support some people with obtaining their prescriptions if their medication was running low.

The provider told us they would make sure staff would be available to support people to attend medical appointments if that was required. People told us they were involved in the planning of their support and care plans reflected their input. People and their relatives told us they were in regular contact with the provider and any changes in care needs were addressed in a timely way.

People and their relatives were supported to access care, support and treatment when required. They told us they felt their views were listened to and acted on. Everyone spoken with had confidence in the provider and told us they could raise any concerns and knew they would be dealt with in a timely manner.

The provider told us they would make sure people would be supported to attend any medical appointments.

Staff had completed their training relating to discrimination and inequality and how that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support. They knew when to raise any concerns regarding these issues with the provider.

At the time of the inspection, there was no one currently supported by the service who required end of life care and support.The care plans we looked at had considered people’s preferences and some information had been obtained about people’s last wishes.