Headquarters BC Care Ltd

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.
During the assessment, it was evident there were multiple examples of kind, caring, and compassionate interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff spoke positively about their roles and reported feeling supported by the provider, which contributed to a caring and supportive culture. One staff member told us, “I will sit and talk to [Person], I don’t know if they can understand me but sometimes, they smile.”
Some daily care records were not consistently completed in a sensitive or dignified manner. We observed occasional use of infantilising language when documenting continence support, such as referring to equipment as “diapers” or “nappies,” and references to “bed wetting” in pre-assessments. While these instances were limited and not present across all records, they highlighted an area for further development to ensure that all documentation consistently reflects respectful and person-centred language.
However, relatives confirmed staff treated their family members with dignity, delivered care tailored to individual needs, and encouraged participation wherever possible. One relative told us, “[Person’s] legs were hurting so I asked care staff to massage them, and they did this for [person].”
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made 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.
During the assessment, staff provided clear examples of how they delivered care that respected people’s individual preferences and personal expectations. Staff demonstrated a commitment to understanding and responding to each person’s needs in a personalised way.
For example, 1 staff member told us, “I oil their hair, massage their head and then plait [person’s] hair to keep it nice and out of their way. I will moisturise them after their shower and give their hands, arms and legs a massage to relax them.” Staff showed attention to the emotional as well as physical wellbeing of people using the service. Staff also provided examples of how they support people to get ready for prayer in line with their religious beliefs.
Staff demonstrated they actively considered people’s personal choices and comfort, providing care in a way that was respectful, tailored, and focused on promoting dignity and wellbeing.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
During the assessment, it was evident people were supported to make choices and maintain their independence wherever possible. Staff provided examples of how they promoted independence through everyday decisions, such as allowing people to choose their clothes, select what they wished to eat or drink, and determine the level and type of support they wanted to receive.
Relatives confirmed staff supported personal care, including showering, in a way that respected the person’s preferences and schedule. Some people also had access to falls alarm pendants, which enabled them to remain independent between visits while ensuring they could summon assistance from professionals if needed.
Staff had sufficient time allocated to each call, allowing them not only to meet people’s care needs safely but also to encourage independence in tasks where possible. This approach supported people’s autonomy, dignity, and confidence, demonstrating care was delivered in a way that promoted self-reliance and respected individual choice.
 

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.
During the assessment, we found guidance for staff on monitoring and reviewing people’s health conditions was limited. There was insufficient information on the potential side effects of some high-risk medications. As a result, staff were not always able to respond effectively to changes in people’s needs, which could impact their safety and wellbeing.
Communication with other professionals and external services was also limited. Staff records did not consistently show information being shared or received regarding people’s care, which further affected staff’s ability to respond promptly and appropriately to changing needs.
Improvement was required in strengthening guidance for staff on monitoring health conditions and medication, alongside improving communication and information sharing with external professionals, to ensure people’s needs are consistently understood and addressed in a timely manner.
 

The provider’s arrangements to promote staff wellbeing and support person-centred care were not always fully effective.
During the assessment, staff reported they were happy working for the provider and had access to the training and hours they required. Staff morale was generally high, and individuals spoke positively about their roles and the support they received in day-to-day tasks.
However, there were limited formal support systems in place. Supervisions were not occurring regularly, team meetings were not held, and feedback from staff was not consistently gathered or used to encourage constructive discussion. This lack of structured support and opportunities for reflection may impact staff development, team cohesion, and the overall consistency and quality of care provided.