Bee Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

The service was effective. People’s needs had been holistically assessed and care was delivered in line with best practice. The service worked in collaboration with other professionals to ensure people received continuity of care that achieved positive outcomes for them. People’s consent had been sought and they were supported to live healthy lives and access health care as needed.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they had had their needs assessed and that these were met by the service. They told us staff talked through their care needs with them, both at the start of the service and regularly thereafter and completed a care plan as a result. One person who used the service said, ‘Yes, the office manager came and spoke to us all. We were very impressed with what they said and they have lived up to that.’ A relative told us, ‘Staff took details about us and [family member’s] lifestyle and interests. They are a remarkable firm.’

Staff told us people’s needs were assessed and care plans produced which were accurate and up to date. They told us care plans gave them enough information to deliver a person-centred service and meet people’s needs.

We saw from people’s care plans that their needs had been holistically assessed with person-centred care plans developed as a result. We saw that care plans gave staff a good level of information to be able to support people in an individualised way. They considered people’s strengths, choices, and independence and put them in control of the care they received. The language used in care plans was respectful and empowering. We saw that care plans considered people’s health needs including when people had been diagnosed with health conditions ensuring staff supported them in a safe and appropriate way. We saw that care plans had been regularly reviewed and that people, and their relatives as required, had been included in these reviews.

People told us they were in control of the care they received and included in discussions around it. We heard examples of the positive outcomes people experienced because of using the service. One relative explained how emotionally supportive staff had been after their family member experienced a bereavement including how well staff had acknowledged and managed everyone’s feelings. Another relative said, ‘My [family member] looks forward to her visits and enjoys chatting to each care assistant, all of whom are caring and good humoured.’

Staff talked about the people they supported with respect and knew their needs well. They knew what was important to people and how they liked to receive care and support. One staff member told us how the service had advocated on a person’s behalf to ensure their visits continued knowing how much this meant to the person.

We saw that care plans included information on what was important to people and what made their care individual to them. They covered all areas of people’s lives and included information on family and those close to them as appropriate. Care plans followed good practice and had been reviewed on a regular basis, with the people who used the service and those involved in their care as appropriate.

People told us they received care and support from the same group of staff meaning they didn’t need to explain their support needs to different staff on a regular basis; this allowed for meaningful conversations to take place and consistently person-centred care to be delivered. People told us all the staff that supported them knew them and their needs well and this was important to them.

We spoke to the registered manager regarding a complaint the service had received and saw that they had worked successfully in collaboration with other professionals to ensure the person’s care was not affected and remained as they, and their family members, wished for. Evidence showed the person was at the centre of decisions and remained the focus for partnership working.

A professional told us about some collaborative working they had recently completed with the service. They spoke positively about how the service engaged with them and told us of their professionalism throughout. They explained the case had been difficult but that the service had maintained a focus on the person who used the service, and the outcome for them. The professional described the service as ‘fantastic.’

We saw many examples of where the service worked with others to achieve positive outcomes for people. We saw the service was committed to ensuring people saw the same staff for continuity of care and that referrals were made to other professionals as required to ensure a thorough and rounded approach was applied. Documents had also been completed in the event a person had to be transferred to another service, again with the aim of ensuring continuity of safe and effective care.

People told us the service they received from Bee Home Care Limited had improved their wellbeing, particularly in relation to their emotional health. One relative told us, ‘My [family member] is very happy with the care they receive from staff. Staff understand [family member’s] needs and worries and this has made them able to stay at home.’ Another relative said, ‘Nothing is too much trouble. They have taken [family member] to medical appointments and have responded to my requests for extra visits when my [family member] has been unwell.’

Staff knew people’s needs and how to respond to them including in relation to health needs and emergency situations. When we asked one staff member about the support they provided to people to maintain their quality of life, they told us how important it was to help people maintain their health and wellbeing along with encouraging independence and providing companionship.

Records showed that the service worked with health professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met and their wellbeing maintained. For example, we saw the service had made referrals to health professionals such as the GP, occupational therapist and speech and language therapist. These referrals were because of the service identifying a person’s changing need and the requirement for reassessment by a health professional. This demonstrated the service supported people to access health professionals to live healthier lives.

People told us they had been included in decisions about their care with regular reviews of their care plan and the service they received taking place. People told us their relatives were included in these decisions and processes as appropriate. People told us they felt included in the service they received. One relative told us, ‘We have had reviews. The service is always accommodating.’ The experiences of people who used the service was consistently positive; they, and their relatives, told us this. One person who used the service said, ‘[The service] helps my life get better’ whilst another told us, ‘[The service] really looks after my life and wellbeing. I cannot say how good they are.’ A relative said, ‘[The service] suits our needs very well. I can’t imagine anyone doing it better. They are exceptional in their own ways and we could not do without them.’

Staff told us the registered manager was passionate about the service and always trying to make improvements for both those people that used it, and the staff. Staff told us they felt the people who used the service were well cared for and that the service achieved positive outcomes for people; they gave us examples of this. One staff member said, ‘Overall, for a new company, I think they are doing very well. It’s well established already and feedback is positive. Everyone I speak with are really happy with the service they get. I will never leave; I am more than happy.’

A process was in place that ensured people were able to regularly provide feedback on the service and the registered manager was able to monitor quality. Each person who used the service received a review every 3 months and these were completed in different formats. For example, some 3-month reviews were completed face to face whilst others were completed on the telephone. In addition to a 3-monthly review, people could also provide feedback via an annual survey. We saw these had been completed and although mostly positive, action plans were in place for the minor shortfalls people had expressed. People did, however, tell us they felt comfortable providing feedback at any time due to the accessible and welcoming approach of the service.

People told us their consent had formally been sought at the start of the service and that the staff that assisted them with their personal care also sought their permission to support them; people told us they felt in control. One service user said of the staff, ‘They talk to me and do the jobs I ask them to.’

Staff spoke respectfully about the people they supported and gave us examples of how they sought consent from people and ensured people felt in control of the support they received. For example, one staff member said, ‘I assist people to make choices. For example, I ask them what they want and listen to them.’

People had been made aware of their rights around consent both verbally and in written form and we saw that information on advocacy services was also provided. Care plans showed consent was in place from the appropriate people. Consent was sought for different aspects of the service and people could opt to consent or not. For example, whilst people had consented to receiving care and support, they had the option to opt out of having their photographs used on social media or their family having access to their care records.