Bkind Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This key question has been rated requires improvement. We reviewed 3 quality statements for this key question. Many people using the service had not been asked for feedback about their care. We were not assured as to how people’s needs were being met due to insufficient evidence. Staff members gave mixed feedback with some stating they felt supported and other staff felt the management team were not responsive to their needs and wellbeing.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives with many telling us they were not asked for feedback regarding support received. Comments included, "Yes, relationships are maintained, and [Name] is treated with dignity and respect. I feel we are listened to around the support that is needed” and, “I do think they treat [Name] with respect but don't always think we are listened to.”

Leaders told us they had sought feedback from people regarding care received however, there was no evidence of action taken, or lessons learnt following feedback. Staff were able to explain how they respected people's choices and their privacy. However, we observed two staff members when they were visiting people in their homes, these observations were mixed with one staff member who arrived late, not apologizing for their late arrival and the person had not been informed in advance of this. The staff member did not speak to the person and went straight to the folder on the table in their lounge.  We did observe one staff member explaining what they were doing and being kind in their interaction with a person.

There was minimal evidence the provider was seeking feedback from people prior to the inspection commencing.

People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about their needs being met immediately. For example, one person had requested their relatives light be turned off which staff had left on during the night and the person could not reach this to turn it off at night. Another person said, "I just tell them what I would like them to do and how to help me and they do."

Staff told us there was not always enough time to meet people’s needs. For example, “Sometimes we need to spend longer at a person's home, and we do not get paid for that but are expected to finish what is needed” and, “I go to certain people’s homes, and I am concerned about call times. I think we do not go to people at times that suit them for example [Name] has a call that is too early and they are too tired.”

Staff members gave mixed feedback with some stating they felt supported and other staff felt the management team were not responsive to their needs and wellbeing. We received mixed feedback from staff, with some saying they had received supervisions and some stating that they had not. Comments included, “Yes, I feel supported by the manager. I'm not aware of what an appraisal is” and, “No supervisions have been undertaken” and, “Supervision is undertaken.”

Leaders told us they supported staff to undertake their roles, provided them with the training and supervision required, however we did not see evidence of this documented. We saw evidence of staff meetings, however these did not evidence that staff wellbeing was considered. We received no evidence of staff supervisions or appraisals. Training that was evidenced was not sufficient to ensure that staff were knowledgeable and trained as required to meet people’s needs.