We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird Care (Leeds North) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bluebird Care (Leeds North), you can give feedback on this service.
Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Leeds North) receives regulated activity; The Care Quality Commission (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.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.
Everyone we spoke with told us the service was safe. Medicines were managed and monitored safely, and staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff were able to describe how they would identify and report signs of abuse.
Risks to people’s safety were managed, however risk assessment processes did not always contain person-centred information.
People told us staff were well trained and competent to meet their needs. New staff received a comprehensive induction, and staff received appropriate support and encouragement from senior staff.
People’s health and wellbeing was monitored and recorded effectively. Any changes to peoples’ health and wellbeing was recorded and any actions taken by health and social care professionals cascaded to staff where relevant.
Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. staff understood how to protect and promote people’s dignity and privacy, as well as support them to live independent lives.
Care plans contained good, person-centred information with lots of detail for staff on how people wanted their needs met. Care plans were reviewed regularly, and people or their relatives had access to their own care records through an app (an application downloaded by a user to a mobile device) where they could communicate any changing need and ensure this was acted upon immediately.
The service had policies and procedures in place for managing complaints. There were no formal complaints in 2018, however the service made the effort to record and thoroughly investigate verbal ‘minor’ complaints to ensure people’s concerns were resolved before they escalated into formal complaints or dissatisfaction.
There was a positive open culture at the service. Staff we spoke with were confident in the leadership of the service. The service gathered feedback from staff and people who used the service in order to monitor and improve the quality of the service.
There was a comprehensive system of quality assurance in place to monitor, analyse and improve the quality of the service delivered. There were regular audits and meetings held to discuss their outcomes.
Bluebird Care (Leeds North) is registered to provide personal care to people in their own home. At the time of the inspection, the service had a registered manager. 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 we spoke with were generally very happy with the service they received and complimented the staff who supported them. They were treated with dignity and respect. People’s care and support plans contained information about what was important to them and how care should be delivered. Staff were supported to provide appropriate care to people because they were trained, supervised and received appraisals.
Staff knew how to keep people safe. They understood their responsibilities under safeguarding procedures and were confident the management team would act swiftly and deal with any issues appropriately. Arrangements were in place for managing some areas of risk effectively but other areas of risk were not assessed which could result in unsafe or inappropriate care. The provider had effective systems for managing some areas of medicine management but others needed developing to ensure people received their medicines safely.
There were enough staff to keep people safe. New care workers had recently been recruited to help make sure appropriate staffing arrangements were maintained. Safe recruitment practices were followed.
People made decisions about their care and we saw they or their relative or friend had signed to say they consented to care. Staff and management were confident that people’s capacity was taken into consideration when care was planned and any decisions made on their behalf were in their best interests. The registered manager said they needed to develop the formal assessment part of the process where people lacked capacity. They showed us the mental capacity assessment tool they would be using.
The service was well led. Staff felt well supported and praised the registered manager who was described as approachable and professional. People had sent ‘thank you cards’ and letters complimenting the service. Complaints and concerns were investigated and responded to appropriately. Compliments and complaints were used as a learning tool to drive improvements and to provide additional information regarding the standard of the service. Systems for monitoring quality were generally effective.
People's care plans contained a good level of information that ensured their needs were being met. We spoke with eleven people and/or their relative who told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us, 'They couldn't be better.' Another person said, 'The service is excellent.'
Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to management of medicines. The provider had clear guidance that outlined how medicines should be obtained and protocols that staff must follow. Staff we spoke with said they had received medication training. People we spoke with said they received their medication on time and when they needed it.
We found people were supported by sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff which met people's needs. People we spoke with told us there were enough staff and they always turned up on time and stayed for the correct length of time.
There were quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care and support. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service's provided.
We spoke with four relatives who told us they had been involved in the development of their relative’s care and were able to make changes to their relative’s care if they wished. They told us their relative’s dignity was respected and independence was encouraged. They said they would talk to the manager if they had any concerns.
Comments from people who used the service included
“They do anything I ask them to do, overall I am very happy”
“We have a laugh. Best organisation going I would not change it for anything”
“I am quiet satisfied with the service”
Comments from relatives included
“Staff are very good, I appreciate their help very much”
“Staff are very sensitive to my mum’s emotional needs as well as her care needs”
“Care staff are brilliant and have a good rapport with my wife”
“I am perfectly happy”
We spoke with four staff and the manager. They all said people received good care and their needs were appropriately met. They told us people’s rights and choices were respected and good systems were in place to make sure people’s privacy and dignity were promoted.