Archived: Bluebird Care (Barnet)

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

There were 129 people using the service at the time of the inspection, and 95 care workers employed. We spoke with or visited fourteen service users and/or their relatives, and eleven staff members.

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt the service provided to them met their needs safely, with support from competent staff. One person whose relative was receiving a service said 'I am confident in the care they are giving her.'

However we found that systems in place to manage the administration of medicines did not fully protect people against the risk of mistakes being made. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to the safe management of medicines.

The agency's recruitment systems ensured that necessary information was available about new staff to ensure that they were of good character for the protection of people using the service.

Is the service effective?

People told us that staff were competent at meeting their individual needs effectively. Comments included 'On the whole they have been surprisingly good,' 'They are fantastic,' and 'In general they support us reasonably well.'

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. People told us that they were involved in decisions about their care and the majority of people were very satisfied with the agency.

Staff said that they received appropriate support and training to enable them to deliver care and support to people to an appropriate standard.

Is the service caring?

People spoke very highly of the care workers supporting them. Comments included 'Carers are really good, nice and helpful,' 'I have nothing but good to say about them,' 'All the carers are really nice,' 'I'm really happy with them,' 'I think they are brilliant,' 'I have been very satisfied,' and 'They are always charming.' However a small number of people felt that members of senior management were not always helpful.

Is the service responsive?

People told us that their preferences were taken into account by staff, and that care workers were flexible in meeting their needs. They told us 'The lady who did the assessment was wonderful,' 'If there's a problem they are right on top of it,' 'The out of hours service is brilliant,' and 'They are usually pretty good.'

Is the service well-led?

The majority of people were very happy with the running of the agency. They said 'I would highly recommend Bluebird Care,' 'I cannot fault them,' and 'They are better than the previous agency I used.'

However some people expressed concerns that the agency had not apologised for missing a small number of lunchtime calls, and had not responded to their requests regarding individual staff members, and for staff to call ahead when running late.

Staff we spoke with showed that they understood the needs of individual people they cared for. Some systems were in place to monitor the quality of care provided by the service. There was room for improvement in the agency office's communication and recording of interactions with people using the service.

During this inspection we found that some improvements had been made since our last visit in October 2013. All notifiable incidents had been reported to the commission. We noted that a meeting held with office staff in November 2013 highlighted the need to report safeguarding matters. We noted that not all areas listed in the minutes related to safeguarding, such as, constipation. The manager told us that they wanted to encourage staff to report all changes to the people they cared for. The action submitted by the provider stated that all staff would be trained and informed about CQC notifications. However, the manager told us that this only applied to office staff.

Most staff we spoke with knew how to report an incident and could give us examples of these, such as someone having a fall which resulted in a hospital admission or a death. However, some staff were not aware of CQC notification requirements. The manager told us that office staff would be responsible for completing notifications to the Commission once an incident had been reported to them, but he would be responsible for deciding whether a CQC notification was required.

People's needs were assessed and care planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. Most people told us that they were involved in decisions about their care. We received mixed feedback about the delivery of care from people who use the service. We heard comments such as, 'they [care workers] are very sympathetic and understand what is going on' and 'when carers are good they are good.'

There were enough skilled staff on duty to meet people's individual needs. The manager told us that staff were allocated depending on the level of need and their experience. Although some staff told us that they felt supported by senior managers, most had not received formal supervision, despite records indicating that they had.

Some systems were in place to monitor the quality of care provided by the service. Although most people had not seen a copy of the complaints policy, they felt able to approach the manager with any concerns and were confident that these would be acted on.

The provider failed to notify us of a notifiable incident concerning a person who had a fall resulting in a serious injury in July 2013.

Relatives expressed their satisfaction of the service verbally and in comments sent in to the provider. They were happy with the service provided by the agency and felt their relatives were treated with dignity and respect. Comments about staff ranged from 'very friendly,' to 'the care that Bluebird gave my relative was exceptional.' We spoke with one stakeholder who described the service as, 'very responsive.'

Staff confirmed that they had received training in how to treat people with dignity and respect. They were able to give us examples of how they treated people with dignity and respect such as ensuring the door was closed when assisting with personal care and respecting people's preferences and likes and dislikes. This meant people were cared for by staff who understood and could meet their needs.

There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse and that they received the care they needed. Systems were in place to monitor and to make improvements to the quality of care and support provided by the agency.

Staff felt supported by the manager, and received training relevant to them.