Beyea Care Ltd

Updated 11 April 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This announced comprehensive inspection was carried out by one inspector on 7 March 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure that someone would be available.

The inspection activity started on 7 March 2018 and ended on 9 March 2018. It included a visit to the office location and telephone calls to seven people who used the service and the relatives of eight people.

We visited the office location on 7 March 2018 to see the registered manager and office staff. We spoke with the registered manager, who was also a director, the co-director, the care coordinator, the field quality manager, the associate field quality manager, one senior care worker and one care worker. We also spoke with a person who used the service who visited the office at the time of our inspection. We reviewed 10 people’s care records, policies and procedures, records relating to the management of the service, training records and the recruitment records of four care workers.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at information we held about the service including notifications they had made to us about important events. We also reviewed all other information sent to us from other stakeholders for example the local authority and members of the public.

Prior to our inspection we contacted the local authority contracts and provider support teams for feedback about the service. We received no information of concern.

We sent questionnaires to 49 people using the service, 49 to relatives, and 33 to staff. This was to gain feedback about the service provided. We received completed questionnaires from 22 people, two relatives and 15 staff.

Updated 11 April 2018

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to adults. At the time of this announced inspection of 7 March 2018 there were 60 people who used the service. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of our inspection to make sure that someone was available during the inspection.

At our last inspection of 23 September 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. However we have rated the key question Caring as Outstanding. This is because without exception people and relatives told us about the caring and compassionate care that they received. The care that people received was designed to demonstrate to people that they mattered. People talked about how their views and comments were listened to and acted on. The ways that people’s care was planned for and met demonstrated the exceptionally caring service provided.

At our last inspection safe was rated as Requires Improvement, and there was a breach of Regulation 12; Safe care and treatment of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the service had not retained the information received from the pharmacy with people's monitored dosage system blister packs. At this inspection we found that the service was no longer in breach of the Regulation. There were systems in place to guide care workers about the types of medicines people had.

There was registered manager in post, who was also a director. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service provided a safe service to people. This included systems designed to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse. The service ensured there were sufficient care workers to cover people’s planned care visits. Recruitment of care workers was completed safely. Where people required support with their medicines, this was carried out in a safe way. There were infection control procedures in place to guide care workers in how to minimise the risks of cross infection.

People’s needs were met by care workers who were trained and supported. The service understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2015 and people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers cared for them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where people required support with their dietary needs, systems were in place to support them. People were supported to have access to health professionals where needed. The service worked with other organisations involved in people’s care to provide a consistent service.

People received care and support which was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their individual needs. There were systems in place to support and care for people at the end of their lives, if required. A complaints procedure was in place and complaints were acted upon and used to improve the service.

The service continued to have an open and empowering culture. The service used comments from people and incidents in the service to learn from these to drive improvement. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.