You are here

Better Healthcare Services Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

About the service

Better Healthcare Services is a domiciliary care service supporting people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection, 39 people were receiving personal care.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People said staff changes meant they were not always supported by consistent staff. They said there were not always enough staff at weekends which meant the care visit times were inconsistent. This had an impact on their daily routines. However, people were happy with the quality of care and support they received from staff. People said staff were kind, caring and friendly. Some people commented positively about some of the staff who did more to support people with their needs. People said they had also formed good relationships with some of the staff.

People were protected from harm by staff who were trained to identify and report concerns. People were safe because potential risks to their health and wellbeing had been managed well. Lessons were learnt from incidents to prevent recurrence. Staff followed processes to prevent the spread of infections. There was guidance for staff about the new coronavirus infection to help them protect themselves, people, and members of the public.

Detailed care plans ensured staff had information they needed to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff were trained well to improve their practice. When required, people had been supported to have enough to eat and drink. People were supported to access healthcare services when required to maintain their health and well-being.

People told us staff were respectful in how they interacted with them and supported them. People felt able to make choices and they said staff respected these. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were systems to manage complaints received by the service. Improvements had been recently made in how complaints were responded to. People said staff were responsive to their needs and they provided person-centred care.

The provider’s systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service had not been effectively used since the registered manager left the service in October 2018. Changes in managers had destabilised the service, and there was a risk people might not receive consistently safe, effective and good quality care. The new manager had made improvements in the short time they had been at the service. People, relatives, staff, and the local authority representative confirmed this. However, the provider needed to support them to make sure the improvements they had made were fully embedded into the culture of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 20 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the Safe and Well-led sections of this full report. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information, we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 2 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.