• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

BeeCared4 Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

5th Floor, Suite 9, St. James House, Pendleton Way, Salford, M6 5FW (0161) 870 9671

Provided and run by:
BeeCared4 Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about BeeCared4 Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about BeeCared4 Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

8 November 2021

During a routine inspection

About the service

BeeCared4 is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger and older adults with various needs including, people with physical disabilities, mental health conditions, and dementia. At the time of this inspection 162 people were using the service. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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 were protected from the risks of abuse and harm and people said they trusted staff to keep them safe. People's care needs were risk assessed and care plans provided staff with the information they needed to manage the identified risk. People’s ongoing risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis and when needs changed. Medication administration processes were streamlined and medicines were safely managed.

Recruitment checks were robust to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff had the necessary safety checks in place before starting work and completed a full induction.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did support this practice. The service relied upon the local authority completing mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions prior to people receiving support from the service.

Care plans were detailed and person-centred. Changes to people’s care plans were actioned and communicated immediately. Live links to mobile devices ensured staff, people and their relatives could access information and updates at any time. Complaints and concerns were addressed and responded to in line with the provider’s policy.

The timing of people’s care visits were not always consistent. The registered manager explained over the COVID-19 pandemic the service had struggled with retaining staff members, which has had an impact on regular call times and continuity of staff.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives in relation to the wider management of the service and the quality of care received. We informed the registered manager of the mixed feedback who assured us they would address the concerns. People and relatives provided us mixed feedback about staff members wearing PPE. We informed the registered manager of the mixed feedback, who assured us staff meetings had been arranged to discuss the concerns. Increased staff spot checks and re-training had also been implemented.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity. People were treated with dignity and respect. People's right to privacy and dignity was respected. People’s views and decisions about care were incorporated when their care packages were devised. People and their relatives told us they were involved in making decisions about their day to day care. The service encouraged people to live as independently as possible and their care planning reflected this.

Governance systems were in place to monitor the standard of care people received. Staff praised the registered manager and wider management team, they felt supported in their roles. The culture was open and inclusive. Staff said they enjoyed their roles and the culture between staff and people was positive. The registered manager worked effectively in partnership with other health and social care organisations and networks to build connections and achieve better outcomes for people using 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 and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 21 October 2020) and there was a breach of regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection to follow up the action we told the provider to take at the last inspection. The service has not been rated overall before.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

2 September 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

BeeCared4 is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger and older adults with various needs including, people with physical disabilities, mental health conditions, and dementia. At the time of this inspection 131 people were using the service. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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

Medication administration processes were not robust. Prescribed creams were not always recorded on the correct medication administration record (MAR), therefore information was missing. The service was not following the provider’s medicine policy in relation to ‘as required’ medicines or best practice in medicines.

The provider had not operated robust systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality of medicine processes and records. They had not maintained accurate and complete records and medicine auditing systems were not always robust.

People told us they do not always get regular staff for their care visits. People and their relatives told us they regularly experienced difficulty when ringing the office, as they were often unable to get through. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us this issue was now resolved with additional lines or call diversions.

The management team and staff demonstrated a commitment to people and they displayed person-centred values. However, we received mixed feedback from people and their relatives in relation to the quality of care received.

Staff felt valued and supported by the management team. Staff members were involved with the service through regular team meetings and annual surveys.

People were protected from the risks of abuse and harm and people said they trusted staff to keep them safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and understood how to recognise signs of abuse. Staff knew how to report any concerns.

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

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 27 June 2019 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection in line with our inspection programme. We have made changes to the way we work due to Covid-19. This is to avoid putting pressure on services that are caring for people. We completed a focussed inspection. During this inspection we looked at two key areas safe and well-led. We do not look at all the five key questions during a focussed inspection. Therefore, the service was not given an overall rating.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service.

We have identified breaches in relation to record keeping and quality monitoring systems at this inspection. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.