You are here

BeeAktive Care Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at BeeAktive Care. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 17 October 2018

This was the first inspection of the service since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in July 2017. This inspection took place on 10 and 17 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice of the inspection visit because the registered manager could be out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be available.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. The agency provides a service to adults with physical disabilities and older people, including people living with dementia. The agency also had a contract to provide people with additional support on discharge from hospital. Not everyone using BeeAktive Care Limited receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection 20 people were provided with personal care by the agency.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The provider completed recruitment checks on staff but these needed to be more robust to help ensure that the right people were employed to provide care for people. This meant there was a lack of management oversight with staff recruitment as the provider had not identified the shortfalls we found at this inspection. The registered manager sent us an action plan after the inspection which showed they had taken appropriate steps to improve this.

There were enough staff and people felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about people’s care and welfare and how to protect them from abuse. Risks were identified and managed effectively to protect people from avoidable harm.

People were fully involved in making decisions about their own care and received a comprehensive assessment before they started using the service. Assessments considered whether people had any needs in relation to their disability, sexuality, religion or culture and these were incorporated into care plans if required.

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.

The support provided was person-centred and flexible, taking into account peoples’ preferences and individual circumstances. People’s care needs were regularly reviewed and their care plans updated to reflect any changed needs.

People were supported by regular staff who were appropriately trained and supervised. Management observed how staff cared for people in their home to ensure their practice was safe and people received the support they needed.

People told us they were always treated with dignity and respect. The service had received many written compliments that praised the staff and management team for the quality of the care provided for people.

Staff supported people to maintain and develop their independence and follow their interests and hobbies.

People were supported with their dietary and health needs. Staff took prompt action when people became unwell or were at risk from poor nutrition. They consulted other healthcare professionals to ensure that people received the additional support they needed. Medicines were managed safely and people had their medicines at the times they needed them.

The service was well managed. The registered manager was supported in their role by a dep

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 17 October 2018

Some aspects of the service were not safe. Recruitment processes required further improvement to help ensure that staff employed were of good character and suitable for their roles.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. People had confidence in the service and felt safe when receiving support.

Individual risks to people’s personal safety were assessed and plans were in place to minimise these. Staff understood their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents or concerns.

There were enough staff deployed efficiently to meet people's needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 October 2018

The service was effective. The provider assessed people's needs and choices for care and support. People and their relatives or representatives were fully involved.

Ongoing training, support and guidance gave staff the skills and knowledge they needed to support people effectively.

People received the necessary support to eat and drink in line with their preferences and needs. Staff worked with outside agencies to support people's health and wellbeing.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and upheld people's rights. People were encouraged to make their own decisions and remain in control of the support they received.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 October 2018

The service was caring. People were positive about the care they received and felt staff were kind and caring.

People were individually involved and supported to make choices about how they preferred their agreed day-to-day care. People and their relatives were consulted about their assessments and involved in developing their care plans.

People's rights were upheld and staff provided care with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 October 2018

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in their assessments. Changes in people’s needs were recognised and appropriate prompt action taken, including the involvement of external professionals where necessary.

People felt the service was flexible and based on their personal wishes and preferences. Where changes in people’s care packages were requested, these were actioned.

People were encouraged to express their views about their care and support. People and their relatives were aware of the complaints procedure and had confidence that the provider would respond to any concerns raised.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 17 October 2018

Some aspects of the service were not well-led. Systems were used to assess and monitor the quality of services that people received. However, these had not been used effectively to identify the shortfalls with staff recruitment.

The registered manager was committed to implementing best practice and driving improvements. Staff felt supported and worked together as a team.

The service regularly encouraged feedback from people receiving support as well as their families or representatives.

The agency offered an organised service and provided flexible and responsive support.