Bluebird Care

Updated 7 June 2022

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector; assistant inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses services for older people.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes.

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 31/03/2022 and ended on 08/04/2022. We visited the location’s office on 31/03/2022 and 08/04/2022.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included a review of notifications relating to safeguarding concerns or other incidents affecting the safety and wellbeing of people. We also reviewed the feedback on the home care providers’ website. We sent the provider an inspection poster with our contact details to circulate to people, relatives and staff to seek their feedback. We requested a range of information from provider about the ongoing monitoring of safety and quality. We obtained feedback from the local authority. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

The provider was not asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to this inspection. A PIR is information providers send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection

We received feedback from 24 people and four relatives about their experience of using the service. We also received feedback from 14 staff, including local managers; care coordinators, and care workers. The registered manager supported us throughout the inspection.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We requested feedback from 10 health and social care professionals and received feedback from three.

Updated 7 June 2022

About the service

Bluebird Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to both older adults and younger adults. The service works in conjunction with the local authority to provide a Discharge to Assess service. This service has been created to help people who do not require an acute hospital bed but may still require support from care services get home more quickly.

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. At the time of the inspection they were providing care and support to 130 people.

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

At the last inspection, systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not always effective and there was a lack of oversight by the management team. Improvements were seen at this inspection. The provider and registered manager implemented new systems and processes to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service.

People were happy with the standard of care and support provided to them. Comments included,

“They (staff) really understood what I needed. It has been very reassuring having their visits” and “They take time to worry about you, it’s not just a job, you can tell they are about the people as well”.

An area for improvement identified by people was the timing of their visits. These were described as “erratic” at times. An improvement plan had been developed to address these issues. This included, contacting people to understand their expectations; a review of the specific geographical areas to reduce travel time for staff, and on-going recruitment of staff.

People said the service was safe. Comments included, “I feel nice and safe, they don’t rush me…” and “Yes I feel safe. The care is excellent really and the staff are lovely”. Staff ensured people were safe from harm. Risks to people were assessed and procedures were in place to help keep people safe.

The provider's systems protected people from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding people. Medicines were managed safely, and people were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. Infection prevention and control policies and practice kept people safe.

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 practice.

People said staff were kind and considerate and encouraged them to maintain their independence in a professional way. Staff respected people's right to privacy and dignity. Comments included, “They’re very kind, very considerate, understand me and mostly my needs” and “I haven’t had any problems and there’s a couple (of staff) that are exceptional”.

People had care plans which reflected how they wanted to receive their care. Care plans were reviewed regularly. People and relatives were involved in the planning of care. People knew how to raise concerns.

Incidents and accidents were monitored by the registered manager. Where accidents and incidents occurred, the registered manager ensured appropriate action was taken for people to reduce the likelihood of injury or reoccurrence.

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

Rating at last inspection and update: The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 07 January 2021) and there were breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected: This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Blue Bird on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.