Bluebird Care (Wolverhampton)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People and relatives felt the staff that supported were kind and caring. A person said, “The carers are kind and helpful and responded to my requests”. A relative told us, “The carers respected my relations dignity and privacy.”

Staff were aware of how to treat people with kindness and compassion and gave examples how they could support people to maintain their dignity.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care support and treatment met their need and preferences.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about their involvement with their care, the care they received and if their preferences were considered.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s care was assessed and plans in place based on their individual needs, however we could be assured these systems were followed. For example, we saw documented in people’s files their preferences in relation to female/male carers, however people told us they did not always receive support from their preferred carers.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Care plans had information available about how they supported people to make choices and remain independent. Staff we spoke with were aware of these plans and how they should include people in their care. However, we could not be assured that people were offered choice and control of their care on a consistent basis.

People told us they did not always receive control over their care as they did not always receive support with care in line with their preferences. One person told us, “Every so often a male carer would turn up and this causes huge anxiety.” Another person told us, “They sent a male carer once and I told him to leave”. Other people felt they had choices and were able to make decisions about their care.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives on how responsive the service was to their needs. A relative told us, “I have had a few hiccups with some carers, I had to go and explain things to the carers as they didn’t always do as requested”. People and relatives felt the turnover and inconsistent staff team meant that staff were not always responsive. Another relative told us, “The main carer is very proactive and good with my relation and in suggesting improvements.”

The nominated individual told us they held regular reviews of people’s care to ensure they had the most up to date information about people, however we could not confirm with people this information was accurate as they did not always have access to this.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to aim to deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with felt supported by the organisation and said it was a good place to work. There were systems in place to consider staff wellbeing and staff felt valued by the support they received.