Bells Home Care Limited

“This inspection found 2 breaches of legal regulations relating to governance and display of ratings. We found that while Bells Home Care Limited continued to deliver compassionate care, there were several areas requiring improvement to ensure safety, effectiveness, and governance were consistently maintained.”

“The provider had not embedded a robust system of governance. Audits had taken place but failed to identify key issues, including the absence of a care plan and daily notes for one person who had been receiving care from the service for over a month. There was no overarching action plan or system to track and monitor improvements. The provider had not displayed the previous inspection rating at the registered location or on their website. This breached regulatory requirements.”

“Risk management was inconsistent. Although some assessments were in place, there were significant gaps in documentation. For example, there were no risk assessments for flammable creams, and body maps were not used to guide the application of topical creams and treatments. Protocols for ‘as and when required’ medicines were missing, and information about prescribed thickener was unclear. These omissions limited staff’s ability to deliver safe and effective care.”

“The provider had not kept up to date with best practice guidance. Staff were unaware of the national initiative which gives consistency about appropriate textures of food and drink, despite supporting a person with swallowing difficulties. Medicines care plans lacked detail, and prescribed items were not always included. While staff were introduced to new people, the absence of written guidance compromised continuity and safety.”

“Partnership working was limited. There was little evidence of collaboration with community organisations or external partners, and the service operated mainly in isolation. Although some improvements had been made since the last inspection, others remained unaddressed.”

“Despite these concerns, people and their families consistently described the care as kind, respectful, and reliable. Staff were praised for their attentiveness and familiarity. One family member said, “They (the service) are very easy to get hold of. The [registered] manager will ring me straight back if she had missed a call.” Another commented, “They (staff) are all very nice, very pleasant, they ask me what I want.””

“Care was person-centred and responsive. Families described collaborative care planning, particularly following hospital discharges. Staff adapted care to reflect people’s preferences and supported independence. One person shared, “They (staff) make what I ask, at lunchtime they will prep stuff for later on, so they can cook a full meal.””

“Staff were described as well-trained and proactive in monitoring health changes. People felt safe and supported, with infection prevention measures consistently applied. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was used appropriately, and environments were described as clean and tidy. One relative noted, “They (staff) are meticulous in what they do, very cleanly, [aprons] and gloves.””

“Leadership was inclusive and compassionate. Staff expressed pride in their work and confidence in the registered manager, who was described as approachable and responsive. Staff felt supported and empowered to raise concerns; this contributed to a…”