Bkind Care Ltd

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 in adequate. At this assessment the rating has remained inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service continued to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance and oversight at the service.

This service scored 36 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement.

The culture at the service continued to show inconsistency in how risks to people’s care were managed, and the lack of promotion of a culture focused on learning and improvement.

The provider had developed an action plan following our last assessment where breaches in regulation were identified and enforcement action taken. However, at this assessment while some improvements had been made, we continued to find areas of concern. Some of these areas had been identified in the action plan as completed. We were not assured that the culture of the service and the vision and values promoted high quality, person-centred care with a focus on continuous learning and improvement.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager and nominated individual were involved in the delivery of care and we received positive feedback about the management team from people and relatives.

However, our assessment showed the registered provider was not working in line with regulations, best practice guidance or its own policies and procedures. This impacted on their ability to meet the fundamental standards and placed people at risk of harm.

The provider gathered feedback from people and relatives about the service, to give them the opportunity to share any concerns. However, we saw limited evidence of this being used and analysed to improve the service.

People and relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. However, the system in place to record and manage complaints was not working in line with the provider’s own policies and procedures and the provider could not demonstrate complaints had been actioned in a timely way.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy, and staff could tell us what whistleblowing meant.

Staff told us they felt confident raising concerns with the management team at any time and felt they would be listened to and actions taken.

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.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service.

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

During our last assessment we found concerns about the safety and governance of the service, and enforcement action was taken. At this assessment, we continued to find issues with the lack of effective management and oversight at the service. The continued breaches in regulation were due to the significant lack of effective oversight and monitoring of the service.

We continued to find issues with care records not always being complete and accurate.

Quality assurance systems in place had not always been effective in identifying the issues found at this assessment. For example, medication audits and care plan audits had not been effective in identifying and addressing the issues found.

Providers are required to display their CQC ratings on their website and office. On our first assessment visit we found this was not in place. We shared our concerns with the management team and this was put in place.

The provider was operating from an address they were not registered to operate from, which was a failure to comply with their CQC registration. We are following a separate enforcement process to address this matter.

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 involvement and advice ofrelevanthealthcare professionals was not always recorded in people’s care records.

Staff told us they could make referrals to health and social care professionalsthrough theirmanagement team. 

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

We found limited evidence of lessons learnt from previous assessments as we continued to find shortfalls in the quality and safety of people’s care.

The lack of effective systems and processes to analyse data such as accidents, incidents and complaints showed a failure to monitor the safety and quality of people’s care. The lack of effective quality assurance systems meant opportunities to identify areas for improvement were missed and issues were not addressed. Our assessment continued to identify breaches of good governance and safe care and treatment.