Bee Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

The service was safe. It had an open and transparent culture and used reflective practice to learn from safety events. There were enough safely recruited and appropriately trained staff to meet people’s needs and people told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the allocated amount of time. People received their medicines safely and staff worked to best practice in relation to infection prevention and control. The risks to people, and staff, had been identified, mitigated, and reviewed.

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 received consistently safe care and that the service took action to ensure this. For example, the service supported people to access healthcare as required and provided extra support when people returned from hospital.

Staff told us the service worked openly and transparently when accidents and incidents occurred. They told us incidents were discussed and reflected upon and used to inform better practice. One staff member said, ‘We are informed of major accidents and incidents and these are always recorded. I have been to staff meetings where there is the opportunity to discuss them. We are also given the chance to discuss them in private if needed.’

Accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated, and analysed to help prevent reoccurrence. We saw that where accidents and incidents had occurred, appropriate action had been taken, including the completion of referrals to other professionals to ensure people received effective and safe care.

People told us they received consistently safe care and that the service took action to ensure this. For example, the service supported people to access healthcare as required and provided extra support when people returned from hospital.

The registered manager explained how they worked with other professionals to ensure people received safe, continuous care and we saw evidence of this. Staff were able to demonstrate, through discussion, how they ensured they kept people safe whilst delivering care and support.

As part of this assessment, we sought feedback on the service from the local authority. They did not raise any concerns regarding this service and completed a quality monitoring visit in February 2024 which did not identify any concerns in relations to safety.

We saw that the service had made referrals to other professionals as required to ensure people received consistently safe care, including in the event of safety events such as when a person experienced a fall. Transfer of care documents were also in place for the people who used the service in the event they needed to be admitted to hospital or another service. This meant people were more likely to experience a safe transfer and continuity of care.

People told us they felt safe from harm and improper treatment when receiving a service from Bee Home Care Limited. They told us staff were consistently respectful and professional. One person who used the service said, ‘I know all the staff so I feel safe.’ Relatives agreed with one telling us, ‘Staff are always cheerful, reassuring, professional, and helpful. They do a lot to keep [family member] safe.’

All the staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were able to tell us how they would report safeguarding concerns both inside, and outside, the service. They were able to explain types of abuse and potential symptoms. All staff told us they had access to the service’s safeguarding policy should they need it. Staff told us they had confidence in the service’s management team taking prompt and appropriate action should they report any potential safeguarding concerns.

A safeguarding policy and procedures were in place and these were appropriate and in line with the local authority policy. The registered manager recorded all safeguarding incidents and we saw appropriate action had been taken in response to these. As appropriate, safeguarding incidents had been investigated and used to inform practice.

People told us they were supported by the service to stay living safely in their own homes which had a positive impact on them. We saw that how the service had identified, managed, and mitigated risk contributed to this. People and their relatives agreed with one relative telling us about the tasks staff had completed to enable their family member to live in their own home up until shortly before their death, this involved managing risk and providing reassurance to the family. The relative said, ‘The staff’s assistance helped me to enable [family member] to remain at home. Their job is not easy but the support and professionalism in such tasks is invaluable and is much appreciated. My family are very grateful.’

Staff were able to demonstrate how they managed risks when delivering care and told us they had no concerns in how people’s individual risks were managed. They demonstrated, through discussion, that they knew people’s needs in relation to risks, well.

The risks to people had been identified, recorded, mitigated, and regularly reviewed. However, whilst these risks were being appropriately managed in practice, we did identify some minor shortfalls in relation to the written risk assessments. For example, the risk assessments were not consistently used to record clearly what the hazards were, who was at risk, what the contributing factors were and what additional actions were required; they also failed to consistently give a risk level. We would expect to see risk assessments in this evidence-based and nationally recognised format. This was discussed with the registered manager who acknowledged and accepted the feedback. They told us they would review the risk assessments and seek to make improvements.

People consistently told us staff performed tasks to help them remain environmentally safe whilst living in their own homes. For example, one relative told us how staff ensured their family member’s kitchen was clean and tidy, disposed of waste, checked dates on food in the fridge and kept it clean, ensured the bathroom was hygienic and that soiled clothing was washed and dried, all of which reduced risks to the person and ensured their home was a pleasant and safe environment to live in.

Staff raised no concerns in relation to safety and risk and told us people received care that was safe and appropriate. We did, however, discuss with the registered manager some minor shortfalls in relation to written risk assessments which was acknowledged and accepted. The registered manager told us they would review risk assessments and look to make improvements.

The environmental risks to the people who used the service, and their staff, had been identified, mitigated, and managed. For example, environmental risk factors such as lighting, clutter, flooring, pets, temperature, and ventilation had been considered to help keep people safe. Where staff were using moving and handling equipment to support people, the service had ensured these had been inspected by a competent person under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER); this helped to ensure the piece of equipment was safe to use. The service also ensured staff knew where utility cut off points were in the event of an emergency and checked the property had working smoke alarms in situ.

People spoke positively about the skills and abilities of the staff that supported them; they told us they had confidence in them and that they met their needs. One person who used the service said of the staff, ‘I can’t praise them enough.’ One relative told us, ‘The staff who attend to my family member, who lives with dementia, are brilliant at their job. They are kind, caring, competent and extremely professional.’ People told us they saw the same group of staff who generally attended to them on time and for the amount of time allocated to them. In the event staff were running late for visits due to unforeseen circumstances, people told us they were informed of this and reassured that a staff member would be with them as soon as possible. People told us late visits did not regularly happen and that they accepted this could occur on occasions.

Staff told us they felt supported, both informally and formally, and valued. They told us they had received an induction that prepared them for their role and that it had been flexible to meet their needs. One staff member said, ‘I feel listened to’ whilst another told us, ‘I have never known a care company like this, it’s so supportive.’ Staff told us they received supervisions, appraisals, and ongoing training. However, some staff stated they would prefer more interactive and face to face training and this was shared with the registered manager who acknowledged this. Staff told us they were given enough time to support people in a person-centred manner and should this not be the case, the registered manager was proactive in getting call times extended.

We saw that staff had been safely recruited and that processes were in place to ensure this. The registered manager had an overview of all the support in place for staff and this included inductions, probationary periods and meetings, supervisions, and appraisals; we saw these had taken place on a regular basis. Systems were also in place to monitor and assess staff competency and these included regular spot checks and competency assessments. Staff were also encouraged to develop their skills and undertake qualifications.

People had no concerns in relation to how staff met good infection prevention and control practice. They told us staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) as required and kept their homes clean and hygienic. One person who used the service told us, ‘Staff are friendly and reliable and have PPE on; they know what they are doing.’

We did not discuss infection prevention and control with staff as we found no concerns in relation to this and people told us staff were good at adhering to good practice.

Processes were in place to manage infection prevention and control. The service had an infection prevention and control policy in place that was complaint with good practice guidance. The service’s business continuity plan also considered the risks associated with infectious outbreaks, particularly in relation to mass staff absence.

Few people received assistance with their medicines at the time of this assessment however for those people that we spoke with where staff assisted them with this task, they raised no concerns. Where staff were responsible for administering people’s medicines, people told us they received their medicines on time and safely.

We spoke with the registered manager regarding medicines management as we had identified some potential concerns in relation to people receiving their medicines. The registered manager provided us with assurances and demonstrated that appropriate measures were in place.

We saw that people had received their medicines as required and in line with best practice. People’s medicine administration record (MAR) charts demonstrated this. The service had a medicines policy in place and audited people’s MAR charts to ensure medicines were administered as prescribed. We did identify some minor shortfalls in the service’s medicines auditing system and this was shared with the registered manager. However, despite audits not recording this clearly enough, we were assured appropriate action had been taken when the service had identified shortfalls in medicines administration practice. Where medicines errors had occurred, we saw that the service had taken appropriate action as a result. However, we did identify some additional shortfalls in how medicines errors had been reported to other stakeholders. For example, whilst medicines errors had been reported to the GP and advice sought to ensure safety, we did identify one incident where the medicines errors should have been reported to the local authority. Whilst the person did not come to harm because of this error, the incident should have been reported to the local authority under their safeguarding policy. Staff had received training in medicines management and administration and their competency to do so had been regularly assessed.