# Bosworth Homecare Administrative Offices

*Operated by Givecare.*

Bosworth Homecare Administrative Offices is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Nuneaton.

## CQC Ratings

| Key question | Rating |
| --- | --- |
| Overall | Good |
| Safe | Good |
| Effective | Good |
| Caring | Good |
| Responsive | Good |
| Well-led | Good |

Rating published: 30/09/2023

## Practical info

- Postcode: CV13 0JN
- Registered manager: Smith, Dawn
- Local authority: Leicestershire
- Region: East Midlands
- City: Nuneaton
- Last CQC check: 30/Sep/2023 - 00:00

## Inspection findings

### Other

- Finding
  - Evidence: Staffing consistency had improved with people supported by regular staff.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Relationships with partner agencies were positive and collaborative.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Complaints were investigated, recorded and actioned accordingly.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: The acting manager was honest, transparent and understood the duty of candour.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Supervisions were being undertaken on a more frequent basis and staff felt supported.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff used PPE effectively in accordance with government guidance.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff were recruited safely with necessary DBS checks completed before starting work.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff received comprehensive training that prepared them to carry out their roles.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **record_keeping** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: Not all people had care plans or risk assessments for medicines. One person required time critical medicines for Parkinson's Disease, but there was limited guidance in place.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **staffing_levels** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: The manager acknowledged there had been points when there were not enough staff to deliver safe care.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **leadership** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: Staff had not been managed effectively while there was no registered manager. This meant people using the service experienced differences in how their care was provided.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **governance** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: Systems in place to monitor the service and quality of care people received was not consistently or reliably used.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **incident_learning** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: The provider had failed to ensure lessons were learned when things had gone wrong. Records were not kept.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **safeguarding** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: Records were not consistently in place to evidence safeguarding concerns were always investigated and reported accordingly.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **missed_or_late_visits** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: We pay for 30 minutes of care, neighbours have timed them [staff] and they've been there anything from 8 minutes to 20 minutes.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **medication_management** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: Staff were leaving medicines out for staff to administer later in the day or the next day for one person. This meant there was a risk medicines could be given incorrectly.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- **care_planning** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: People did not have health specific risk assessments in place. For example, people with Diabetes and Parkinson's Disease did not have care plans and risk assessments.
  - Published: 2024-03-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Provider addressed all previous breaches of Regulation 12 and Regulation 17.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: People rated the service either excellent or good in surveys; culture valued individuality and person-centred care.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Registered manager understood duty of candour and submitted statutory notifications to CQC.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff consistently wore PPE and followed infection control measures including COVID-19 training.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: People felt very safe and reported no missed calls; staff stayed the full duration of care calls.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Safe recruitment practices including character and criminal records checks were in place.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Medicine administration was safe with an audit system and trained staff.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed with health-specific guidance in place for staff.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- **missed_or_late_visits** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: A small number of calls had been untimely and some call times were not agreed at a specific time. This had not impacted on their health.
  - Published: 2023-09-30
- **governance** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: Systems measured the quality of the care provided by the service. Some of these lacked detail about issues such as timeliness of call times.
  - Published: 2023-09-30

## Source

Data published by the [Care Quality Commission](https://www.cqc.org.uk/) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Canonical page: https://homecarecompass.co.uk/agency/1-180165893

HomeCare Compass is an independent guide and is not affiliated with the CQC.