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

This key question has been rated good. We reviewed 3 quality statements for this key question. We found care plans were not person centred and people told us they had not been involved in either implementing or reviewing their care plans. People and relatives told us most staff were caring however, they were not always aware of people’s needs.

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 and their relatives told us they had not been involved in either implementing or reviewing their care plans. We visited 6 people and only one person could state the name of their staff. No others could be named by either the person or relatives and friends. Many people and their relatives fed back that times of visits were not always appropriate or what had been agreed, this left people with no support for long periods of time. People were not provided with person centred care in line with their choices and preferences. For example, staff did not always attend visits at times agreed with the service. One person told us staff had been late by 1 hour twice in one week. This had impacted upon the persons day as they were unable to leave their home and stated they, “hated being in the house.” Person centred plans for people were not in place and daily notes were not always completed, and information was minimal. It was difficult to determine what care had been given due to being unable to cross reference the records against any person-centred care plans. We found some people had 2 care plans in place and some only one, however upon checking these had incorrect or contradictory information on them and were not a true reflection of the person’s current needs. This was a breach of Regulation 9 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Staff told us they had received training in person centred care. Staff said they understood what person centred care meant and commented, "To look after the person as they wish" and, "To treat the person with respect and follow their wishes."

People generally received care from consistent care workers, however their knowledge of peoples care needs was mixed. Comments included, “I don't feel information is followed. I don't think they understand how mum likes things. I don’t know if they read my notes or if they are in a rush but they leave lights on that are requested to be turned off or on one occasion [name] was in bed but they left the lamp out of their reach so [Name] was unable to turn the lamp off when they wanted to sleep because [name] couldn’t reach it.” Another relative told us, “Consistency was important for [name], and we do mainly get one person, I like their main carer and they know [name] well."

There was no evidence to show that staff liaised with other health and social care professionals involved in people’s care.

Records were not maintained regarding advice given by professionals so people received continuity in care provision.

People told us they had not requested or received information in a different format, however one person told us they struggled to understand staff and there was no evidence of any action being taken to assist with this need such as picture board/ white board to note things down.

Leaders told us that no one required information in another format and that if this was a need then they would ensure this was provided.

Processes to ensure people’s communication needs were identified, recorded and shared with staff were lacking and there was no evidence the Accessible Information Standard had been considered. Reasonable adjustments had not been made for those people who found it difficult to understand staff members where English was not their first language. Information was not available in alternative formats to meet their individual needs and preferences.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives with some stating that they knew how to raise concerns about their experiences of care and support, though not everyone felt confident complaints would be taken seriously or explored thoroughly. And some people who had raised concerns stated that they had not been listened to and that no changes had occurred following the concerns being raised.

The provider could not talk to us about actions taken following a recent complaint . We were not assured about how feedback was acted on or whether people were kept informed of what improvements were made as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy, but systems and processes were not embedded to learn from any information of concern received. We were made aware of a recent complaint the provider had been asked to investigate. However, we could see no record of the outcome of the investigation or action taken in response, and there was no evidence the complaint had been logged to support ongoing monitoring. We saw limited evidence that people, relatives or staff had been given the opportunity to feedback about their experiences of BKind Limited. Limited recent feedback had been sought and whilst some responses had been positive, improvements taken as a result of feedback were not documented or shared. The provider demonstrated some staff meetings had taken place, though full documentation of the meetings and agreed actions was not available.

People from all backgrounds were supported, however not everyone felt respected. One person said, “The care staff don’t speak to me, I don’t think they like me, they ignore me when I ask them to do anything.”

Not all staff were aware of the provider’s equality and diversity policy. One staff member told us, “The policies have just gone on the App when the inspection started, I had never seen them before.”

There was no evidence of staff or management reviewing people’s needs so they could plan appropriately for their individual circumstances and ensure equal opportunity to care and support. Out of hours arrangements were not in place to ensure people received access to the same support throughout the day and night.

People and relatives told us most staff were caring however, they were not always aware of people’s needs. People said they sometimes had to remind staff of what they needed. One family member informed us they had contacted the office in various ways but had not received a response.

Staff said they knew people well and told us care plans would be looked at on the app however, when asked to see these staff was unable to access the app. When hard copies within people’s homes were reviewed these were often sparse in detail or incorrect.

Care plans were not written to evidence person centred thinking and support, they lacked detail and were mostly written in a bullet point style.

Processes were not in place to give people the opportunity to discuss future plans and what they would like to happen as they neared the end of their life. Although a template was in place, this had not been shared with people using the service or their relatives to see if this was something that they wished to be in place.