Loyal Bee Care

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Records showed that accidents and incidents were documented, and staff understood the importance of reporting concerns. Care staff felt they were valued and able to raise concerns, or near misses and that appropriate action would be taken and lessons would be learned. Relatives told us, “I would speak to the office. I have not had a safety concern; we have receptive communication. There are thorough notes on each visit.” Another said, ‘[Family member] was given medication twice in one day. It was taken seriously by the provider. It was rectified diligently. They then brought in clearer documentation.” A professional told us, “They communicate well and don’t hesitate to reach out if they need support or have concerns.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Health care professionals told us the service worked effectively with them and was responsive when concerns or changes in people’s needs were identified. Comments included “In particular, they have responded very promptly and professionally to a recent enquiry I made regarding my isolated elderly patient and their medication. I am grateful for their input.” Another said, “I find the team to be approachable and caring, I am always easily able to get hold of management to discuss any concerns they may, or I may have in relation to patient care to facilitate a swift and positive outcome.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People consistently reported and demonstrated through their actions that they felt safe with their care staff. We observed people were comfortable requesting support and reassurance from staff. People told us, “They treat me very well. There are no problems. They are as good as gold and do anything I want them to do. I definitely feel safe with them.”

A relative told us, “They are compassionate and very respectful. [Family member] is 100% safe. They have put us at ease by going in to support them.” Another said, “So much respect, talk to [family member] and what [family member] decides is how things go. Always asks what is wanted or needed. Definitely safe. They are so lovely and considerate.”

Healthcare professionals were confident the service provided safe care. They told us, “I have worked with [manager] in previous role and know them to be highly professional and extremely experienced. I trust them to flag up problems to us and provide a high standard of care.”

Staff had a good understanding of local safeguarding procedures and were confident any safety issues they raised would be investigated and resolved. Staff said, “Everything is written down on the visit app, and I am happy to call the team, if there is an alert we raise it, if we see signs of neglect there is an audit trail as we complete the incident report.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. We found staff supported people in the least restrictive way to ensure people and their families felt in control of their care.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff were confident people were safe; risks had been assessed and were mitigated effectively. Care plans included guidance on how to support people with mobility issues. Care staff said the office made sure they were aware of any updates to risk. A relative told us, “They are trained and aware of the risk of falling. They know what support they need.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Care plans included environmental checklist, highlighting potential hazards such as gas, electric and water and where these could be located should they need to be shut down. This supported staff to respond appropriately and safely when working in people’s homes.

Care staff completed lone working training, and all care staff used an App on their phone, so their location was known when they arrived and left a call.

A person told us, “They make sure there is nothing about to cause me to fall. They are very careful.” A relative told us, “They advised us to get grab rails fitted around the house for [family member]. They are prompt in telling you what needs to be done.”

We saw examples where environmental risks had been identified and acted upon. For example, one care plan recorded risks associated with the driveway having poor drainage posing a significant risk to staff entering or leaving the property. The family had been encouraged to maintain the surface and drainage and that care staff should carry out a risk assessment on arrival at every visit.

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider had enough suitably qualified and experienced staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staffing levels were planned to ensure people received continuity of care and visits were delivered as scheduled. The provider covered a 5-mile radius which helped staff attend visits on time. People told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of their visits. Comments included, “They have never not turned up. They are usually ahead of time and there is enough staff” and “If carers are sick, they will find someone to cover” and “I have a clear list of who is coming and when.”

The provider had excellent induction and training, ensuring they employed the right care staff at the right time. Health care professionals consistently told us how well the staff team were trained. Comments included, “I have found them to be reliable and well trained to deliver care for End-of-Life patients” and “I have no concerns in terms of carers knowledge level.” Another said, “Staff are well trained and carry out their roles with confidence and competence. In more complex situations, they respond well and demonstrate the skills required to meet my client’s needs, suggesting that relevant and ongoing training is in place.”

The provider reviewed people’s care plans weekly to identify any changing needs, training requirements, or staff concerns. This proactive approach prevented issues from escalating and ensured people received the right support at the right time.

Care staff told us “The induction was good. I had shadow shifts and write up on how the company started and why. Being nurse based, they wanted to go above and beyond other care companies, this was one of the things that attracted me.”

We saw records of training provided during induction which included on-line training and face to face sessions.

Staff were recruited safely and necessary pre-employment checks had been completed. Staff files contained photographic identification and full employment histories.

Supervisions were carried out and staff told us they were supported and able to raise concerns or seek advice when needed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff had access to stocks of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Staff told us PPE was readily available and could be replenished when needed as they had access to the office 24 hours a day. We observed PPE being used appropriately and people told us, “They use aprons and gloves and they wash their hands.” Relatives said, “They use aprons and gloves. A carer had a cough and asked if it was ok if they wore a mask.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff understood how to manage people’s medications safely and had access to clear guidance on when specific medications should be administered. Relatives told us, “They do [family members] medication, there have been no problems” and “Medication given jointly works for us. Creams are applied by care staff.”

Care staff received training on medication and the provider carried out regular observations to assess staff competence in practice.

Medicine Administration records (MARs) were accurately completed and demonstrated people had received their medicines as prescribed. Care staff told us, “I completed eLearning and worked in care for 4 years and [deputy manager] carries out an observed supervision”, another said, “Recently had supervision and observation and am confident in handling.”