You are here

Bosworth Homecare Services Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 May 2012
Date of Publication: 4 July 2012
Inspection Report published 4 July 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider is not compliant with this standard. We judged this had a minor impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard. People’s views and experiences were not always taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

User experience

A relative who we spoke with told us,” I have been involved in the care and welfare of my relative and we find the staff who visit are respectful of our needs and wishes”.

We were told, “The care package meets our needs although we have to wait for additional funding to meet the extra needs”.

We were told by the agency that staff were expected to use people’s home telephone if possible so that they can remotely dial in to the office. This was used as a time checking method to monitor the length of the call and to check that the care worker was at the correct location and on time. We asked if the person with the landline minded them doing so. We were told, “I have agreed to staff using the telephone in my home to dial in only. I do feel that if I was to change my mind it would be alright with the agency”.

Other evidence

We attended a staff meeting on the day of our visit. Staff told us they were able to maintain confidentiality by keeping the daily notes in the person’s home and in a place decided by the person receiving the service. The person using the service or their representative and staff would know where to access it.

Staff were able to describe how they ensure people’s privacy and confidentiality while they delivered care or treatment. For example, they would ensure the doors were closed and curtains used appropriately and would speak quietly about private matters and try not to talk about an individual’s care in front of others.

We saw that information about care and treatment was communicated between staff by using daily notes as a means of providing information between the change of staff shifts.

It was not clear how people’s dignity, independence, wishes or preferences were included in the care planning. Although decisions were being made about care there was a lack of written evidence of people who use services being at the centre of the assessment, planning and delivery of care, treatment and support as their opinion or any signed agreements did not seem to involve them as it was never mentioned in the care plans.

On listening to the staff meeting and reading the minutes of other staff meetings, we noted that staff were aware of, and able to recognise people’s social and emotional needs, values and beliefs. Staff told us the care plans gave them a basic outline of what they should do but they told us they would ask the person using the service about the specific details of their care as it was not always in writing.

We read in one care plan how a person using the service needed three staff to move them using a hoist. The care plan mentioned the person was “sensitive” about their body and about their weight. However, no further details of how this person could be reassured was included. This could impact on the person using the service having reduced confidence in their care workers and further loss in their independence and dignity. We looked at another care plan and saw this was similar in the lack of detail.

When a person is new to the service they are provided with an introductory package. They were provided with information allowing them to be able to raise a concern or complaint about the service. It also told them how it would be dealt with. We did not see any mention of the local advocacy services. This service can be useful to help people to discuss their ideas before making decisions that will affect them. It may be that they had no other representatives to help them.

We asked if information about the service was available in a number of different languages or formats. We were told the agency could provide this if required although there was no evidence of this.

People using the service were provided with a questionnaire each year. This was used to provide feedback to the service on how the service was managed. However, we cannot be sure how adjustments were made in response to the feed back and as part of the decision making process for the agency. We have requested further information about this.