You are here

Bluebird Care (Hambleton and Richmondshire) Good


Inspection carried out on 19 July 2017

During a routine inspection

Bluebird Care (Hambleton and Richmondshire) is a domiciliary care service providing support and personal care to people in their own homes. The service covers the areas of Richmond, Bedale, Northallerton, Easingwold and Thirsk. On the day of inspection the service was providing a service to 120 adults who lived in their own homes and employed 47 support workers.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 19 and 20 July 2017 and it was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The provider is required to have a manager for the service. 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. There was a manager in post who was registered with CQC and we have referred to them as ‘the manager’ throughout this report.

The people using the service told us that they felt confident about their safety. We found that their support workers had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and the support workers had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes.

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.

There were sufficient support workers employed to meet people’s individual needs. The support workers received induction, training and supervision from the management team and we saw they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People told us that they had been included in planning and agreeing to the care provided. We saw that people had an individual care file that contained care plans detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. People had risk assessments in their care files to help minimise risks whilst still supporting people to make choices and decisions. There was a complaints procedure in place and people told us that they would not hesitate to contact the agency office if they had a concern.

People said they were happy with the assistance they received with the preparation of meals.

People said they were treated with respect and dignity by the support workers. Every person we met or spoke with, agreed that they received a very personal service from support workers they knew and trusted.

People and the support workers told us that the service was well managed. The manager monitored the quality of the service, supported the support workers and ensured that people who used the service were able to make suggestions and input to the development of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Inspection carried out on 22 April 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 22 April 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available. This was the first inspection of the service since they first registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC)

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Care and support was provided to people in their own home on a flexible basis and in accordance with individual needs. People who received care and support from the agency provided us with positive feedback. They said they received a reliable service and a good standard of support from caring, kind and compassionate staff. People told us they felt safe in the way staff supported them and had confidence in the staff.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare had been assessed and information about how to support people to manage risks was recorded in people's plan of care.

People who used the service received support from a consistent staff team and staff were matched to people with the same interests to help build a positive relationship. Sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people’s needs.

Recruitment checks were in place. These checks were undertaken to make sure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. The training programme provided staff with the knowledge and skills to support people. We saw systems were in place to provide staff support. This included staff meetings, supervisions and an annual appraisal. The agency had a whistleblowing policy, which was available to staff. Staff told us they would feel confident using it and that the appropriate action would be taken.

Some of the people who used the service were supported with their medicines and staff told us they were trained and felt confident to assist people with this.

Staff had received relevant training which was targeted and focussed on improving outcomes for people who used the service. This helped to ensure that the staff had a good balance of skills, knowledge and experience to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff liaised with healthcare professionals at the appropriate time to help monitor and maintain people’s health and wellbeing. People were provided with care and support according to their assessed need.

People gave consent to their plan of care and were involved in making decisions around their support. People’s plan of care was subject to review to meet their changing needs. Staff told us they felt well informed about people’s needs and how to meet them.

The registered manager had a clear knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and their roles and responsibilities linked to this. They were able to explain how they would ensure a decision was made in a person’s best interests if this was required and the service worked alongside other health and social care professionals and family members. This helped to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests.

Staff we spoke with told us how much they enjoyed working for the service and were committed to providing an excellent service for people. Systems and processes were in place to monitor the

service and drive forward improvements. This included internal audits and also the provider had franchise audits which provided positive feedback about the service.

People's views had been sought through the use of questionnaires. The overall feedback we received about the management of the service was very positive.