Bells Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to governance at the service and display of ratings.

This service scored 57 (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 shared vision and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement, and understanding the challenges and the needs of people.

Staff expressed pride in their work and a shared commitment to delivering high-quality care. The provider described a clear intention to keep the service small and focused on quality. Staff reported a strong team ethos and mutual respect. However, there was limited evidence of a shared strategic direction being embedded across the service. While some improvements had been made since the last inspection, inconsistencies remained in care planning and audit processes.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager was visible and approachable. Staff and relatives consistently praised the registered manager for being approachable, responsive and supportive. There was a strong sense of trust and familiarity between the manager and the people they supported. However, leadership oversight was not sufficiently robust with gaps in care planning and risk assessments. The provider had not kept up to date with best practice guidance, including protocols for topical creams and dietary standards, and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements such as ensuring ratings from previous inspections were displayed.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff felt comfortable raising issues and were confident that concerns would be addressed. There was a culture of openness and respect, with staff describing the manager as approachable and responsive. Feedback was welcomed, and the provider demonstrated a willingness to listen and act on recommendations.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff felt they were treated fairly and equitably. The staff team reflected the community in which they provided support. Where staff requested flexible working these arrangements were fully supported by the service.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance arrangements were not sufficiently embedded. Audits had taken place but failed to identify or address key concerns found during the inspection. There was no overarching action plan or system to track and monitor improvements. The provider had not displayed the previous inspection rating, this breached regulatory requirements. There was no clear system to track actions from staff meetings or concerns raised. The provider was not able to demonstrate how they kept up to date with best practice or worked collaboratively with external partners to improve the service. The absence of structured oversight and improvement planning limited the provider’s ability to sustain quality and ensure compliance.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The provider received update emails from the Care Quality Commission and the local authority. They explained how policies were updated by the service they contracted to provide these. However, the service did not demonstrate active collaboration with community organisations or external partners. There was no evidence of efforts to integrate into the local community or share best practice. The provider generally operated in isolation, which limited opportunities for improvement and innovation.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had not embedded a culture of continuous learning and improvement. While some improvements had been made since the last inspection, these were not supported by a structured approach to quality assurance or service development. There was no evidence of analysis of trends or themes from feedback, incidents or audits. The absence of a service-wide improvement plan limited the provider’s ability to monitor progress or evaluate the impact of changes.