You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 September 2016

This inspection took place on 26 July 2016 and was announced, because we needed to make sure there was someone at the provider’s offices. We last inspected this service in January 2014 and found that the provider was meeting the legal requirements in the areas we looked at.

Blue Sapphire Care Limited is a community based service in Leighton Buzzard, providing care to people in their own homes. There were fifty-two people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

People were safe using the service because staff were trained in safeguarding and they knew how to keep people safe from avoidable harm. There was enough staff to safely meet people’s needs however, people’s care visits had been arranged in a way that did not allow staff any travel time from one person’s home to the next. People had individualised risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on keeping them safe and their medicines were managed appropriately, where required. The provider had policies and procedures in place for the safe recruitment of new staff although checks of reference from previous staffs’ employers needed to be more robust.

The service was effective because staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and were trained to meet these needs. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met and where required, people were supported with the preparation of food and drinks.

People were able to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care. Staff were caring, friendly and approachable. They were also respectful of people’s dignity and privacy.

The service was responsive to people’s needs which had been identified prior to them starting to use the service, and were reviewed regularly. People were supported in a personalised way and they all had individualised care plans in place.

The service was also well-led. There was a registered manager in post who was a director of the provider company. They supported staff to take part in the development of the service and carried out regular audits and surveys to monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 September 2016

The service was safe.

Staff were trained in safeguarding people and they knew how to keep people safe from avoidable harm.

There were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs however, people’s care visits had been arranged in a way that did not allow staff any travel time from one person’s home to the next.

People had individualised risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on keeping them safe.

People’s medicines were managed appropriately.

There were robust policies and procedures in place for the safe recruitment of staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and were trained to meet these needs.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met.

Where required, people were supported with the preparation of food and drinks.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 September 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were caring, friendly and approachable.

People were able to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff were respectful of people’s dignity and privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s care needs were identified prior to them starting to use the service.

People were supported in a personalised way and they all had individualised care plans in place.

The provider had an effective system for handling complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 September 2016

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager in post.

Staff took part in the development of the service.

The provider carried out regular audits and surveys to monitor the quality of the service.