• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Bee Friends

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Suite 33, Liberty House, The Enterprise Centre, Greenham Business Park, Thatcham, Berkshire, RG19 6HN (01635) 817525

Provided and run by:
Bee Friends Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 16 September 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office. This inspection was carried out over two days. The inspection team consisted of one inspector on day one, with two inspectors completing day two of the site visit.

Prior to the inspection the local authority quality team were contacted to obtain feedback from them in relation to the service. We referred to previous inspection reports, local authority reports and notifications. Notifications are sent to the Care Quality Commission by the provider to advise us of any significant events related to the service, which they are required to tell us about by law. As part of the inspection process we also look at the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We had not received the PIR for Bee Friends, therefore were unable to consider the manager’s views on the service prior to visiting.

During the inspection we spoke with six members of staff, including two managers, the registered manager and three care staff. We spoke with three people who use the service and three relatives of people who were authorised to speak with us on their behalf. In addition we spoke with three professionals from the local authority.

Records related to people’s support were seen for ten people. In addition, we looked at a sample of records relating to the management of the service. For example staff records, complaints, quality assurance assessments and policies and procedures. Staff recruitment and supervision records for six of the staff team were reviewed.

Overall inspection

Inadequate

Updated 16 September 2017

This inspection took place on 10 and 22 March 2017 and was announced. Bee Friends provides domiciliary care services to people within their own homes. This can include a specific number of hours of support to help promote the person’s independence and well-being. At the point of inspection 26 people using the service received assistance with personal care.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were not always kept safe. Whilst staff were able to recognise signs of abuse, they were unable to identify what protocols to follow if they had any concerns. As a result notifications were, not completed when safeguarding incidents occurred. The service did not complete or record any investigations to ensure that all steps were taken to prevent any abuse happening again

Risks were not assessed to keep people safe. This meant that staff did not always know how to manage a risk should one occur.

People were not supported with their medicines by suitably trained, qualified and experienced staff. Not all staff who administered medicines had received training in medicine management. There had been no check of staff competency prior to administering medicines. Some people had not received their medicines as prescribed. The impact and risk of this was neither reported nor assessed by the service.

The service did not have systems in place to ensure sufficient suitably qualified staff were employed to work with people. References, gaps in employment history and photographic ID was missing from staff files.

People received care and support from staff who did not have the necessary skills and knowledge to care for them. Mandatory and specialist training had not been completed by all staff working with people. Staff did not have an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, and did not know how to use the principles of this when working with people. People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff may not have been able to support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

People told us communication with the service was not good and they did not feel listened to. Complaints were not investigated and not responded to. There was no evidence of any concerns being properly documented by the service. People, professionals and relatives said that people were not always treated with dignity and respect. Confidentiality had on occasions been breached.

People did not receive care that was person centred, and tailored to meet their individual needs. Care plans did not contain sufficient information on how to support people, and were not reviewed regularly. Calls were not completed at the times requested by people, with some calls being delayed by several hours, whilst some were not completed at all.

The service was not well-led. The registered manager did not have an overview of the service. Audits and quality assurance documents were neither completed fully, nor understood, by the management team, as being important in maintaining and developing the service.

We found a number of breaches in regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Staff were not provided with appropriate training, competency assessment and performance appraisals as was necessary for them to carry out the duties they were employed to perform. The provider had not established an effective system that ensured their compliance with the fundamental standards. The fundamental standards are regulations 8 to 20A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’. Services in special measures will be kept under review and, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.