Bkind Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People generally received care that was centred around their needs. People and relatives told us staff knew them well and were responsive. However, we found care records were not always fully person-centred.

Care plans and risk assessments contained some inconsistencies. The lack of consistent and detailed care documentation placed people at risk of not receiving care that was current to their needs and preferences.

We also found examples were risks to people’s care were identified, but care plans to manage those risks were not in place. Some care plans were not up to date, so did not reflect people’s current needs. We found no evidence of impact from these inconsistencies, but this could impact on the provision of person-centred care. The provider told us they would review care plans and risk assessments to ensure these were consistent and up to date.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The nominated individual and registered manager were knowledgeable about people’s health needs and knew which services were available if people required a referral to other healthcare professionals, to address any changes to their needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The management team told us they assessed people’s communication needs during initial assessment and would be able to provide information in adapted formats, if required, such as using visual aids. However, in our review of people’s care documentation, we did not find evidence of people’s communication needs being consistently documented or planned for. For example, a person using the service had limited used of the English language. In some parts of their care plan this information was mentioned but there was no specific guidance on how staff should effectively communicate with this person; and in other parts of the care documentation this information was absent.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We found complaints where not being managed in line with the provider's own policies and procedures. On our first visit, we found limited evidence of the provider having a comprehensive oversight of complaints and concerns raised by people and relatives. Records of complaints were kept in daily notes, and it was not always clear what actions had been taken. After our visit, the provider showed us evidence that some improvements had been made to record complaints. The lack of a system to manage complaints risked the provider not acting consistently on concerns and not being able to analyse trends and patterns that might help improve the service.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise a complaint, and when they had raised concerns or a complaint these had been responded to in a timely and satisfactory way by managers.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In our conversations with staff and the registered manager, and review of information, we did not find evidence of concerns in relation to people using the service being discriminated against or not having access to the care they required. However, the lack of detailed care planning linked to people’s protected characteristics could place people at risk of not accessing the care they required in a consistent way.

The service supported people living with various health needs, for example with dementia or a sensory impairment. Care plans did not always detail how people’s health needs presented for them or what adjustments staff needed to make to adapt the care they provided. We did not find any evidence of impact but this meant people could receive care with variable outcomes which could lead to inequalities.

People were not supported to plan future changes or goals, so they could ensure personalised choices around decisions including at the end of their life were known and documented. Care plans had limited information about people’s future wishes and there was limited evidence of staff having end-of-life discussions with people. No one using the service was in receipt of palliative care at the time of our assessment.