Archived: Bluebird Care Sunderland

Bluebird Care (Sunderland) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection 36 people were receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and relatives praised the quality of care and support provided. The management team had a clear vision of providing great care and support, enabling people to remain independent and in their homes.

The provider had processes in place to minimise the risk of abuse and harm. Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of how to raise concerns. Individual and environmental risks were identified and managed. Procedures were in place to ensure people received ongoing care and support in the event of an emergency.

The service continued to operate a thorough recruitment process. Staff had the appropriate training and experience to support people safely. The service sought specialist training from healthcare professionals when people had a specific condition or care need. The registered manager conducted regular observations of practise and competency. Staff told us they were supported to develop and received supervisions and appraisals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this.

The service embraced technology and it was used to improve the quality of care and support. The system was used throughout the service including the recording of interactions with people and administration of medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Care plans were personalised and clearly outlined people’s care and support needs. Staff were responsive in advising the office team about changes in people’s needs.

People were treated with respect and dignity. People and relatives told us the service was flexible and responsive to their needs.

The service worked in partnerships with healthcare professionals to ensure people received joined up care. Staff supported people to access the community. The service recognised isolation can have an impact on people’s wellbeing and worked with local organisations to support people to have positive outcomes.

The registered manager constantly reflected on the service provided. Information was gathered from a range of sources and reviewed to identify any trends with lessons learnt cascaded to staff.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 4 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

This is the first time the service has been inspected since it was registered on 11 December 2014.

Bluebird Care (Sunderland) is registered to provide personal care to people in the community, living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 36 people receiving a service.

At the time of our inspection the service did not have a registered manager. However, the person managing the service had applied for registration. 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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe receiving support from care workers and were happy with the service.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and had received up to date training. Staff were confident in their role to safeguard people and told us they felt confident to raise any concerns. All safeguarding concerns were reported to the local authority, were investigated and appropriate action was taken.

People had appropriate risk assessments in place which were clearly linked to associated care plans. The service also had general risk assessments in place covering environmental factors and work tasks.

Medicines were managed and administered in a safe way. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were fully completed. Staff received regular competency checks as well as appropriate training to enable them to administer medicines safely.

People and relatives told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. People received support from a consistent cohort of carers where possible. The care co-ordinator explained how they tried to ensure people were supported by the same staff members. Staff were recruited in a safe way with appropriate checks carried out prior to them providing care and support to people.

Staff received regular training and all essential training was up to date. Staff told us and records confirmed they received regular supervisions. Staff also received annual appraisals which were recorded and included training and development opportunities.

People were supported by staff to meet their nutritional needs where appropriate. Specific care plans were in inform and guide staff about how to provide effective support to people. People told us staff members asked what they would like to eat and made whatever they wanted.

People and relatives spoke highly of care staff and felt they were friendly, kind and very nice. People felt comfortable and at ease receiving support from staff.

Care plans were personalised, detailed and updated regularly. People and their relatives felt involved in care planning and were confident communicating any changes they wanted to management.

People knew how to make a complaint and felt confident to do so. They informed us they had no issues or problems with the service. The manager investigated all complaints received and took appropriate action.

The manager operated an open door policy and staff were happy that they could approach management with any issues or concerns and felt supported in their roles because of this.

The service regularly received compliments in the form of thank you cards, emails and letters from people who received a service and relatives.

The registered provider had quality audits in place to monitor service provision and identify any potential improvements to develop the service further.