Bluezone Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care choices. Care plans did not always document how staff should effectively provide care in a personalised way, responsive to people’s needs. People’s care plans detailed the planned care tasks at each care visit. However, they contained limited guidance for staff around personalised approaches when supporting people around behaviour and their communication. For example, 2 people’s care plans stated they could become distressed. There was no information about what may trigger an escalation in behaviour, or how staff could pro-actively create the conditions to minimise the behaviour. Although incidents were infrequent, the provider needed to ensure guidance promoted a consistent staff approach. In another example, another person’s care plan stated staff should assess the person’s body language to help determine their mood and whether they were hungry. The care plan did not specify what the personalised body language cues staff should be looking for. Additional detail would make it clearer what the person was trying to communicate, enabling staff to be more responsive to their needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The provider had worked hard to build staffing contingency and consistency for calls located in remote or rural areas. People told us this had been of significant benefit to them as previous care providers had struggled to maintain services in these areas. There was evidence the provider had made timely referrals to professionals when people’s needs changed. This included referrals to social workers and medical professionals. The provider was responsive in adjusting care in line with professional recommendations. This helped promote continuity in people’s care provision.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We received feedback from people communication from the provider could be improved. This was specifically around not always receiving a care rota communicating times of upcoming care visits. They told us they were not always informed about changes to their planned care, for example when staff were running late or absent. The registered manager had addressed issues around communication and rota management in monthly staff meetings from February 2025. They had instructed staff to contact people in advance if they were unable to arrive at planned times. The registered manager had also reiterated with office staff about the importance of providing timely and updated care visit rotas to people. Improvements in this area were ongoing and were not fully embedded at the time of our inspection.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People were positive about how the provider listened to their concerns and resolved issues raised. Senior staff maintained regular contact with people to gain their feedback informally and also through formal reviews of care. The provider also sent out information about external websites, where people could give their feedback about care. We checked these websites and found the provider had received positive feedback about the quality of care. We reviewed records of complaints the provider had received. We found senior staff had worked to establish the facts and wrote to people with the outcome of investigations. This reflected a thorough approach where people’s feedback was used to improve the quality of care. For example, using feedback to identify additional training and support needs for staff with knowledge around cooking.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had policies and procedures in place around equality and diversity. We found examples of staff supporting people to seek medical advice or input if they were unwell.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People told us they did not suffer any discrimination or inequality as part of their care. They told us they were listened to and treated fairly. The provider understood the potential barriers people may face to equity in outcomes and experience. They were conscious to promote people’s individuality to help ensure they were treated fairly.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. We received positive feedback from relatives around end-of-life care provided to their family members by staff. There were also testimonials on external websites detailing how staff had provided empathic and responsive end of life care. People had end of life care plans in place where this was relevant. The provider had developed care plans with people and healthcare professionals. This helped to ensure people’s wishes were documented and reflected in the care they received.