Headquarters BC Care Ltd

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 assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
During the assessment, we found care plans generally included useful information about people’s backgrounds, histories, and daily routines, which supported staff in providing some tailored care. Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s preferences and followed routines to meet basic needs.
However, not all relevant information was consistently recorded in care plans or risk assessments, such as a lack of information to guide staff around people’s medication needs, and a lack of clarity around people’s actual assessed mobility needs. These gaps meant staff did not always have the information needed to provide fully person-centred care or respond effectively to individual needs. Contradictions within risk assessments, further reduced clarity and consistency in care delivery.
While staff generally followed routines and understood reporting procedures, the lack of detailed, person-specific records limited the ability to consistently provide care that was responsive to each individual’s needs and preferences.
 

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.
During the assessment, rotas and call logs demonstrated people were receiving the correct number of care calls, and staff were staying the full duration of their allotted time. People were receiving the care and support they were paying for, and there were no missed calls recorded, which contributed to a reliable service.
Care delivery appeared consistent, with people being supported by regular staff who knew them well. This continuity helped build trust and ensured that people felt comfortable and understood by the staff providing their care.
Staff had received the necessary training to support people safely, which was positive. However, not all training had been completed before staff began delivering care.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
During the assessment, we were told care plans were read out to people and their relatives in their preferred language when they were first created. This was a positive approach to supporting understanding and engagement. However, there were no records maintained to show this had taken place, and we received mixed responses from people and their relatives regarding whether they had seen the care plan. At the time of assessment, people did not have a copy of their care plan in their home, and there was no evidence that they were offered this option.
Management staff confirmed care plans could be printed on request, but there was no formal process to provide care plans in alternative formats, such as large print, or different languages, which could be important for some service users.
Most people using the service had a first language other than English, and it was positive to see the provider had leaflets about the service available in different languages. However, there was an opportunity to strengthen how information is consistently made accessible to meet individual needs.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.
During the assessment, we saw feedback had been gathered from people and relatives regarding the quality of care, and all feedback received was positive. However, there was currently no system in place to collate, review, or act on this feedback. This meant the provider could not demonstrate how insights from people were used to improve the service. Contact with people was maintained by the administration team, but these interactions were not consistently recorded, limiting oversight of engagement activities.
There were no care staff meetings, meaning staff were not formally involved in reviewing service performance, providing constructive feedback, or contributing to service improvements. This limited opportunities for staff to be actively engaged in shaping care provision and ensuring that people’s voices informed day-to-day practice.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
During the assessment, we found the service was accessible to both new and existing people using the service. People already receiving care had the contact details for the registered manager, administration team, and nominated individual, enabling them to know who to contact if they needed support or wanted to raise a concern.
The provider had considered accessibility and inclusion when planning care delivery. The service was able to provide staff who spoke different languages, helping remove communication barriers and supporting people to feel understood and actively involved in their care.
Overall, the arrangements in place ensured people could easily contact the service and access support when needed, demonstrating good practice in promoting equitable access to care.
 

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.
During the assessment, we found care plans generally included some detail about people’s needs and daily routines, which supported staff in providing care. However, there were inconsistencies that could affect equitable outcomes for people. For example, where people were prescribed medication used to support anxiety and distress, there was no information in the care plans to guide staff on how to monitor the need and efficacy of this.
Care plans did not contain sufficient information or guidance for staff to manage risks effectively. This meant staff may not always have had the knowledge they needed to respond appropriately to changes in people’s needs or to maintain consistent, safe care.
However, we observed how people from different ethnic backgrounds and minority groups were supported by the service and were able to access care and support in ways that respected their cultural and personal preferences.
Overall, while care was generally delivered, the gaps in guidance and risk management mean that outcomes were not consistently equitable across all individuals.
 

People were not always 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.
Planning for the future, including end-of-life care, was limited. The service’s statement of purpose stated palliative and end-of-life care was offered, but staff had not received training in this area. This meant they were not fully prepared to support people if such needs arose.
At the time of the assessment, there were no people receiving end-of-life care. The lack of proactive planning and staff preparedness reduced the service’s ability to respond effectively and could impact the quality of support people, and their families would receive during this time.