Bliss Care And Training Ltd - Barnet

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The provider and management team had created a culture of staff responding to people’s care needs in a person-centred way. People saw the same staff regularly at times they were happy with and felt staff were confident in what they were doing. For example, one person said, “I am happy with the service. They [carers] arrive on time. They stay. They give me personal care. I have no complaints and would recommend them.” This was echoed by others. A person’s relative said, “The care is very good. The carers are very kind, compassionate, thoughtful, respectful and reliable.” However, there were shortfalls in assessing risk, making plans to manage and monitor risks, the management of medicines, and applying the MCA. Although the management team were conducting audits to assess the quality of the care provided, they were not aware of these shortfalls. This was a breach of regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider told us they would address these issues.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff said they were satisfied with how the service was managed. They felt supported to care for people in a person-centred way. Managers were developing the service and were open to our feedback.

There were processes in place to create a positive culture. People having regular reviews and staff having regular competency checks. However, processes and the quality of implementing these needed to be improved. We found issues with how the management were monitoring and managing risks, there were gaps in knowledge about how to manage high risks, and with applying the MCA.

Staff again felt satisfied with the culture of the leadership. Managers were available when they needed them, and their work had been planned in a way which meant they could focus on people’s needs.

Further work was needed to learn from mistakes, to share these in an inclusive way with staff and effectively/robustly assess all aspects of the quality of the care provided. We found issues with audits not evidencing how compliance had been achieved, and not identifying errors.

Staff also felt confident to raise issues. They said they were not encouraged to give their feedback, but they felt confident to do so.

There was a complaints process in place, staff had regular supervisions and attended team meetings.

Staff felt valued and confident working with the management team. Managers spoke of how they promoted staff inclusion.

Staff received training, supervision, and attended meetings. Staff told us they were given work which reflected their work life requirements.

Staff felt satisfied with the governance of the service but could not explain why they felt this. Managers and the provider were completing audits of the records and checks on how staff performed in their work. They were monitoring care visits took place as agreed. The provider was working to improve the records relating to people’s care by transferring to an electronic system. However, we found shortfalls in key aspects of safety management (risk assessments, care planning, recruitment checks, emergency planning), implementation of the MCA and ensuring lessons are learnt either from mistakes within Bliss Care and Training Ltd and the wider care community, for example in relation to the associated risks to vulnerable people who smoked cigarettes.

Processes were not always effectively implemented.

People could not talk to this quality statement.

Management attended information and learning events organised by the local authority. However, they did not always use these as opportunities to improve and quality check aspects of the care the service provided. There were missed opportunities to support people to engage with their communities and the resources available, especially when this was being commissioned by the local authority.

The provider and management had engaged with the local authority during the local authority’s quality check visits.

The management worked with the local authority to improve the service when directed, but they were not considering how to involve the community and other partners with this service.

Staff could not tell us when this happened. Managers were not able to evidence how they did this.

Processes were not in place to promote this work.