Bee Home Care Limited

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

The service was responsive. People received care that was person-centered and at a time they chose; they told us they felt in control of the care and support they received. We saw that the service provided people with relevant and full information in formats that met their needs and that complaints were investigated and responded to. The relatives of people who had used the service but had since sadly passed away, told us the service was caring and compassionate in providing end of life care.

This service scored 64 (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 a consistently good quality service that met their needs in a person-centred manner and was flexible; their relatives agreed. We asked people whether the service met their needs and some of the response we received included, ‘Yes, probably more’, ‘Yes, it meets my needs. The staff are very good’ and ‘It’s essential for me, I couldn’t manage without them.’ One relative told us, ‘Without this care, we wouldn’t be able to cope.’ Another relative said, ‘I am impressed and very happy with the care my [family member] receives from Bee Home Care Limited.’

Staff told us they had enough time to deliver person-centred care in an unrushed and patient manner that met people’s needs. They told us where this was in doubt, they reported this to the management team who were very responsive in reassessing people’s needs or negotiating extra time for people when commissioned by another stakeholder. One staff member said they had ‘ample’ time to provide person-centred care and that, ‘I have no pressure placed on me by the management team [to deliver rushed care]; they are really good with this.’ All the staff we spoke with agreed they had enough time to deliver an individualised service that did not put pressure on the people who used the service.

People told us the service had taken time to get to know them and record their needs, aims and choices, including in relation to their health, leisure and cultural needs. People told us these needs were met in a person-centred manner and that staff knew their needs well. People told us staff supported their choices and assisted them in whatever way they needed including in relation to social and emotional wellbeing. One person who used the service told us how staff supported them to participate in a leisure activity they enjoyed and how this helped them to remain independent. Whilst a relative told us, ‘The staff know all [family member’s] needs. They are an anxious person and staff understand this well.’

Staff demonstrated, through discussions, that they knew people’s needs well and supported them to remain independent and make their own choices; staff explained to us how they encouraged this. Staff supported people to participate in their local communities as they wished to and the people we spoke with confirmed this.

The service worked with professionals to ensure people received continuity of care, support and treatment and we saw examples of this. One professional we spoke with told us how the service had demonstrated professionalism, compassion, and care whilst working with them to resolve some concerns in relation to a person who used the service. They spoke positively about how the service remained focused on the needs of the person and their commitment to resolving issues.

We saw from care plans that people’s needs had been holistically assessed, including information on their health and wellbeing needs, and that this not only enabled staff to support them but share information with other professionals, as required, to aid continuity of care, support and treatment. Care plans also included information on social and leisure needs and what staff needed to do to support people to access the local community and hobbies.

People raised no concerns in relation to what information they received and how this was delivered. People told us the service was good at communicating with them and the relatives we spoke with praised how they were kept informed of their family member’s care and wellbeing. One relative, whose preferred communication was by telephone, said, ‘Communication is good and staff are always happy to speak with me by phone.’

Staff agreed that they had access to information as they needed it and that it was generally accurate and up to date. The service’s policies and procedures were always available to staff via an electronic application and the staff we spoke with had knowledge of how and where they accessed information.

We saw that there was a good level of information available to people who used the service, their relatives and staff. For example, a detailed service user guide was in place that provided people with information on the service, what to expect, and how to complain. We also saw that some information was available in easy read formats. Staff had received training in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which governs the way in which services can use, process and store personal information and that they had access to good practice guidance.

People consistently told us they felt listened to in all aspects of the service and the care they received. They told us they had been involved in regular reviews and surveys and that they felt comfortable in raising concerns or giving feedback at any time. All the people we spoke with told us they would recommend the service so had not felt the need to raise complaints or concerns.

Staff told us they felt listened to and had a voice. They told us that supervisions were a two-way conversation and that the management team were responsive to feedback and comments. Staff told us they had regular meetings that were an open forum for discussion and that they felt comfortable in raising concerns, making suggestions or discussing difficult topics. One staff member said, ‘Everyone within the service has a voice and staff and clients are openly encouraged to use this avenue if they so wish.’

The service completed regular reviews with people and gave them opportunities to provide feedback and suggestions. Where shortfalls were identified, actions plans were put in place to address these. A complaints policy and procedure were in place and these were appropriate. We saw an example of where the service had responded to a complaint and we identified that appropriate action had been taken to investigate and respond to the concerns and seek advice from other professionals as required. Complaints and concerns were logged to help identify any themes or trends.

People told us they generally received the care they needed at a time that suited them. Some people told us staff occasionally arrived late but understood why this occurred (due to emergencies or unforeseen circumstances); no one we spoke with told us this had a negative impact on them. All the people we spoke with (8 people who used the service and 6 of their relatives) told us the service was flexible in meeting their needs. One person told us the service accommodated appointments such as health appointments or leisure activities and worked around these commitments.

Staff told us there were few missed calls and that generally people received the care they needed at the agreed time; this was confirmed by speaking with the people who used the service and their relatives. Staff told us the service was good at making people know when staff were running late and ensuring people received their care calls. One staff member said, ‘They are really on it regarding well-spaced calls and they do everything in their power to make call times.’ Staff did not raise any concerns in relation to people receiving the care they required at the time they needed it.

Call time data showed people generally received the care they needed at their agreed time, with few calls being late. Processes were in place to manage this such as office staff calling people if their call was due to be late. The service used an electronic system for staff to record their call times and this was mostly used appropriately. We did see some occasions where staff had forgotten to complete this but the service was aware and had discussed this with staff during staff meetings.

The service supported people who are most likely to experience inequality in outcomes such as those people living with dementia, a mental health condition or a learning disability, for example. The registered manager also confirmed the service had made a specific decision to provide services to people who lived in a rural location. The service had been successful in tailoring the care to meet the needs of these client groups; people told us this. The people we spoke with told us the service met their needs and had a positive impact on their lives. One relative we spoke with said, ‘Very consistent, friendly service, always willing to accommodate [family member’s] needs and prepared to go above and beyond.’

Staff told us people received an individualised service that met their needs. They told us the service considered the rural location they worked in and adapted call and travel times to suit this to ensure people received a consistent service. Staff told us that on the occasions where they needed to raise concerns about travel time, the management team were considerate and responsive to this, making changes as required. One staff member told us, ‘On the most part we get enough travel time. I have had a couple of incidents where travel time was rushed. I raised it and it was rectified quickly. Every time I have raised something, they have looked into it quickly.’

The provider told us they specifically sought to deliver a service to vulnerable people in a rural location. They said, ‘I wanted to make sure we were looking after people in harder to reach places such as rural villages. This makes it harder due to things such as signal issues and staff recruitment. I wanted to prevent people going into care if they did not want to.’ The service had been successful in achieving this and people were very positive about the service they received.

People told us the service delivered good end of life and palliative care support. The relatives of some people who once used the service but had sadly since passed away gave us positive feedback about the care their family members had received both during their life and when it was coming to an end. One relative told us how much they appreciated the professional care staff gave to their family member leading up to the end of their life. They told us the care delivered had enabled their family member to remain in their home and that they were very grateful for this. Another relative whose family member had passed away said, ‘Bee Home Care Limited looked after my [family member] until they passed away. I could not have asked for better. They were kind, considerate and professional. I don’t know what I would have done without them.’

Staff told us people received good quality, consistent, and individualised care no matter what people’s status or circumstances. They had confidence in the service, the management team and their colleagues delivering this. One staff member said, ‘People are well cared for… the service looks after people really well… we have excellent team working.’

No one was receiving end of life care at the time of this assessment however staff had received training in delivering this and the service had processes in place to provide such care should it be required. For example, people’s end of life care needs and wishes would be recorded along with any advance directives people may have. Advance directives are decisions people make about their care and treatment in the event they become unwell.