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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. At the last assessment this key question was rated good. At this assessment this has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

People largely told us they received good care and staff told us they had the support from leaders at the service. However, due to widespread and ongoing concerns identified, we could not be assured people were receiving caring, high quality care due to the lack of robust systems and processes in place.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. There was mixed feedback on people’s experience of care. One person had a positive experience where they told us, “The carers chat to me. They are really nice.” However, another person said, , “The carers are alright. Some are not as good.”

Staff knew the importance of treating people with dignity and respect. One member of staff told us, “I’m new to care and I really enjoy it. I like working with people.”

We did not receive any feedback from partners.

Most people had a positive experience of the care they received. Most relatives and people told us they were happy with their care.

Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of how different people required help with different aspects of their lives.

People received care that was individual and personalised to their needs. However, people's care plans and risk assessments were not always personalised, and support was not always in line with care plan guidance. There was a lack of clear guidance and key information in some care plans to enable staff to deliver the right and consistent support people needed. This meant we could not be assured staff had all information required to manage people’s risks or to respond to these in a safe and effective way.

People's felt in control of their care and decisions. One person told us, “Some of the carers are very good, others not so, but they have engaged with [relative] by talking about the past.” A person told us, “They are ok for what I need and they are nice to me.”

Staff told us they knew people well and they felt they had the training and information to provide person-centred care.

People's care plans and risk assessments were not always personalised, and support was not always in line with people's care plan guidance. There was a lack of clear guidance and key information in some care plans to enable staff to deliver the right and consistent support people needed. Some people's personal history was either not recorded or sparse. Staff were not provided with enough information about the person's likes or dislikes to help understand them and initiate conversation. Improvements were required to ensure completed care plans and risk assessments were person centred and included how risks to people were to be mitigated and reduced.

People did not always feel staff were responsive to their immediate needs. One person we spoke with told us staff had declined to apply a prescribed medication, despite asking. Another person told us, “I have asked the carers to get me an appointment with the doctor but no one helps me.” A relative told us, “[Relative’s] legs are often bad but the carers don’t realise if [relative] has his trousers on.”

Leaders had processes in place to respond to people’s immediate needs. However, these were not robust and procedures designed to keep people safe were not always followed. We also found there were reviews or opportunities for people to give feedback to understand their experience of care.

Staff felt positive working for the service and they consistently told us they felt supported in their role. One member of staff told us, “The nominated individual is very good. They will always help me if I need it”. While another member of staff told us, “If I am unsure, I would ring the nominated individual.”

Systems were in place to support the staff team. This included leaders being available for face to face and telephone support. Staff consistently told us the nominated individual was supportive, accessible and available to help them.

People were not always consulted on how they would like to receive their care, systems and processes at the service were no always followed and care plans were not given to people.