Bluebird Care (Cambridge and South Cambs)

Updated 25 August 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place between the 5 and 9 July 2018 and was announced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. We gave the provider five days’ notice as we needed to be sure they were in. This was also because some of the people using the service could not consent to a home visit or phone call from an inspector, which meant that we had to make alternative arrangements.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least annually. This provides us with information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to assist us with the planning of this inspection. We also looked at other information we held about the service. This included information from responses to our survey questionnaire as well as notifications the provider sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law such as incidents or allegations of harm.

Prior to our inspection we contacted the local safeguarding organisations to ask them about their views of the service. Their views helped us to plan our inspection.

On the 5 and 6 July 2018 we spoke with 11 people who used the service and five relatives of people who were not able to speak with us. On 5 July 2018 we visited the provider's office and we spoke with the registered manager and nominated individual. We also spoke with three office based staff with management roles and three care staff. On 9 July 2018 we spoke with a further three care staff by telephone.

We looked at care documentation for seven people using the service and four people's medicines' administration records. We also looked at two staff recruitment files, staff training records, supervision planning records and other records relating to the management of the service. These included records associated with audit and quality assurance, accidents and incidents, compliments and complaints.

Updated 25 August 2018

At the last inspection in January 2016, the service was rated 'Good'. At an earlier inspection in July 2014 the service was also meeting all the standards we inspected. At this inspection, we found the service remained 'Good' as the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated any risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

We undertook an announced inspection of Bluebird Care (Cambridge and South Cambs) between 5 and 9 July 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, younger adults, people living with dementia or mental health needs and people with sensory impairments. At the time of our inspection there were 58 people using the service.

Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Cambridge and South Cambs) receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

People’s care needs were exceeded by staff who were considerate and compassionate by understanding and acting upon people’s needs, no matter what these were. Staff knew the people they cared for well and promoted independence, privacy and dignity at every opportunity. People and their relatives were involved in the care and support provided. The provider focussed importance on matching staff to people taking into account their age, interests and background. This helped people to get on and develop positive relationships. Staff enabled people to retain their independence and they encouraged people to live fulfilling lives. Staff promoted people's well-being by encouraging people to remain as active as practicable. People were at the heart of the service.

The service continued to provide safe care as people were supported by staff who had been trained and were knowledgeable about safeguarding, undertaking risk assessments, medicines’ administration and infection prevention and control. A sufficient number of safely recruited staff provided people with care that met their needs. Lessons were learned and changes were made when things did not go as planned.

People were supported with their eating and drinking to achieve a healthy lifestyle where appropriate and assessed as a need. Staff enabled and supported people to access healthcare services when this was required. The registered manager and staff team worked with other organisations to help ensure that people's care was coordinated and person centred. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Concerns were responded to before in a positive way and any complaints were managed methodically and learned from. Staff worked well with other stakeholders to ensure that when people had a need for end of life care, this would be well managed to help ensure people could have a dignified death.

The registered manager led by example and fostered an open and honest culture within their staff team. Quality assurance, audit and governance systems continued to be effective in driving improvements. Staff were given the means to achieve their potential including regular support and training which was based on each staff member’s role. Staff were reminded of their responsibilities and this made a positive difference to the quality of people’s lives. People’s, relatives, staff’s and external stakeholders’ views influenced how the service was run. The registered manager and their staff team worked in harmony with other organisations.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.