Beehive Care & Training Group Ltd

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 means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. 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 66 (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.

Safety incidents, concerns and near misses were reported, reviewed and used to improve practice. Managers reviewed incidents and identified learning to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Staff described feeling confident to report concerns and said managers were approachable and responsive. Managers demonstrated openness and transparency. This helped to embed learning and reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Professionals confirmed the provider worked collaboratively and used learning to improve people’s safety. One professional told us, "I have found Beehive to be very responsive to suggestions of how their service might be improved, in particular in relation to one client."

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.

The provider had systems and processes to support safe care, including during transitions between services. Managers worked closely with health and social care professionals to plan care, share information and coordinate support, including when people’s needs changed or following hospital discharge. Professionals told us transitions were well managed and communication was timely and thorough. One professional told us, “Beehive has managed meeting client needs promptly upon hospital discharge home and prehospital admissions with good communication/updates to our service.” These approaches helped ensure people experienced smooth transitions and received safe care during times of change.

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 were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff received training, understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to raise concerns. One staff member told us, “I would report any type of abuse, financial abuse, physical abuse. I would follow our standard operating procedure and if needed report to the local authority safeguarding board.”

People and relatives said they felt safe and trusted staff supporting them. Comments from people included, “I feel very safe with them. I trust them all” and “I feel very safe with them so I would 100% recommend them.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. At the beginning of the assessment there was not always clear guidance in place for staff to follow. However, this was immediately rectified.

Although care plans and risk assessments were in place, with areas covered including falls, skin breakdown, nutrition and hydration, these were not consistently detailed and some key risk areas required further clarity. For example, for 3 people further details were required within their care plans to ensure staff had all the information they needed to safely support the people with their health conditions. We discussed the concerns with the management team who rectified them during the assessment. We did not find these shortfalls had impacted on people's care as staff knew people well.

The provider gave examples of how people were supported to take positive risks to promote independence.

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

Risks associated with the environment were assessed before the service started supporting people within their homes. Care plans included a section on ‘Environmental safety home environment assessment.’ This covered access and entry to the property, internal layout, clutter and falls risk, heating, fire and electrical safety and hygiene. This helped to keep people safe within their own homes.

The provider did not always make sure there were qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

One person was being supported with a clinical task that had been delegated by a health professional. Although staff received training and competency assessments, these had not been completed by a health professional. The management team addressed this immediately and were working with the hospital nurse and local authority to ensure they met best practice guidance.

Staff were not always recruited safely. We found some gaps in recruitment records, however the provider rectified these during the assessment.

The provider made sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. Staff had access to training which was appropriate and relevant to their role. The provider ensured staff had access to a variety of training modules. There were some gaps in the completion of this, however the provider had a plan in place to address this.

The provider ensured there was a detailed induction package for all new members of staff. As well as e-learning, staff attended a 4-day induction programme. The induction provided face to face training for key components of the role. Staff had access to a training hub. This contained all policies and procedures as well as factsheets on specific topics. This included stoma care, dementia, muscular dystrophy and catheter care amongst other key topics.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs, and managers stepped in to provide care when required. A concern was raised regarding calls being too close together, however people told us staff were generally on time. Comments included, “They are always on time, and if they are running late, they let me know. I’ve no complaints about them whatsoever”, “It’s really good. They come on time but always let me know if they are running late” and “They are always on time and always stay the right amount of time on all my calls. They always let me know if they are running late.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

At the beginning of the assessment an infection control audit was not in place, this was addressed during the assessment.

There was a standard operating procedure and risk assessment in place. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available, and staff received infection control training. This helped reduce the risk of infection and protected people and staff.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe. At the beginning of the assessment there was not always clear guidance in place for staff to follow. However, this was immediately rectified.

Although care plans provided some details, there were not always clear protocols for medicines that were given ‘as required’. Risk assessments for high-risk medicines were also not always in place. During the assessment clear protocols for PRN medicines and clear risk assessments for people prescribed high-risk medicines were implemented.

Staff received training and competency checks and knew when to seek advice or escalate concerns. Medicines administration records (MARs) were monitored, and actions were taken when doses were missed or refused. Audits identified some recording errors and inconsistencies, including gaps in MARs. The provider had started to strengthen protocols and auditing systems, but these were not yet fully embedded.

People told us they were happy with the support they received with their medicines. Comments included, “They give me my medication every day. They have a nice routine with regards to that” and “They know what they are doing. They always check to see if I have taken my medicine.”One relative told us, “They make sure he gets all his medication every day, never been a problem with them.”