# A & M Bewdley Care Services

*Operated by A & M Bewdley Care Service Limited.*

A & M Bewdley Care Services is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Kidderminster.

## CQC Ratings

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

Rating published: 11/06/2019

## Practical info

- Postcode: DY11 7QN
- Registered manager: Bown, Julie
- Local authority: Worcestershire
- Region: West Midlands
- City: Kidderminster
- Last CQC check: 11/Jun/2019 - 00:00

## Inspection findings

### caring

- Finding
  - People were treated with dignity and respect; staff knew individual needs, preferences and promoted independence.
  - Published: 2021-01-24

### effective

- Finding
  - Staff were well trained, supported people to access healthcare, and worked within MCA principles obtaining consent.
  - Published: 2021-01-24

### Other

- Finding
  - Evidence: Management were accessible and approachable with an open office policy supporting staff.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Complaints were logged and investigated and people felt confident raising concerns.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: People were treated with dignity and respect and were actively involved in planning and reviewing their care.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff were well trained, received regular supervision, spot checks and described a good induction process.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: People received consistent care from regular staff who understood their individual likes, dislikes and preferences.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Medicines were administered by trained staff with appropriate recording and checking procedures in place.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: People felt safe with care staff and staff demonstrated clear understanding of safeguarding responsibilities.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **safeguarding** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: Relevant notifications had not been submitted to CQC where safeguarding reports had been referred to the local authority.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **communication_with_families** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: Three people told us that they were not really aware of who the managers were as there had been a number of changes. Four people told us communication could be improved.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **incident_learning** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: Although complaints were logged and investigated there was no evidence of the provider taking any learning for improvements to minimise the chance of things going wrong again.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **governance** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: The systems used had failed to identify that four notifications had not been made to CQC.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff felt valued, supported, and part of a cohesive team, with recognition programmes introduced by management.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: The registered manager introduced quality assurance processes including monthly medication audits, spot checks, and satisfaction questionnaires.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: Complaints and concerns were logged, investigated, and responded to, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: An electronic rostering and communication system enabled up-to-date client notes and responsive care coordination.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed with involvement from people and relatives.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: People and relatives praised staff as kind, caring, and respectful, with dignity and independence actively promoted.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff received induction, regular supervisions, spot checks, and attended staff meetings, supporting competency and development.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: Medicines were managed safely with staff training, record checks, and prompt action taken where gaps were identified.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff demonstrated good knowledge of safeguarding responsibilities and risk management, with hazard checks completed before leaving.
  - Published: 2020-01-29
- Finding
  - Evidence: People felt safe and received regular rotas so they knew which staff to expect, with consistent care workers assigned to them.
  - Published: 2020-01-29

### responsive

- Finding
  - Care plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed; complaints were responded to and people knew how to raise concerns.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Improving care quality in response to complaints or concerns
  - Published: 2019-06-11
- Finding
  - End of life care and support
  - Published: 2019-06-11

### safe

- Finding
  - People felt safe with care staff; staff understood safeguarding, risk management and safe recruitment practices.
  - Published: 2021-01-24

### well_led

- Finding
  - Four CQC safeguarding notifications were missed; no learning from complaints; management changes affected communication.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Planning and promoting person-centred, high-quality care; duty of candour; engaging people and staff
  - Published: 2019-06-11
- Finding
  - Managers and staff being clear about their roles; understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements
  - Published: 2019-06-11

## 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/1-841748157

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