Bluebird Care (Wolverhampton)

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We received mixed views from people and relatives about their involvement with the planning of their care. One person said, “I don’t have regular reviews of the care plan, but I discussed changes with the carers as and when they happened”. Another person told us they felt the care was effective and had an updated care plan. They also told us they couldn’t see a day-to-day plan but would have a debrief each day from the carers.

Assessments had been completed, and care plans and risk assessments were in place based on these assessments. However, as people did not always have access to this information, we could not be assured this information was accurate of how they wished their care to be delivered.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

We received mixed views from people and relatives about if there care and treatment was developed with them. One person told us they had to develop their own care plan which they kept in their home and shared with staff. Another person felt involved with this process however, told us they had not seen any records. Other people and relatives were happy with their involvement.

There was a system in place which used evidence-based tools to assess people’s needs. When asked, staff told us they were aware of these plans and outcomes.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

We received mixed feedback about how staff worked well together. One person told us, “Bluebird say all the right things and told the physio they would help support, but they don’t because they don’t have the skills.” Other people and relatives raised no concerns.

Staff shared information electronically about people through daily notes.There was a system in place to ensure people received support from other professionals if needed, however we could not be assured this advice was always followed as staff had not always received up to date training and people told us this was not always completed.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

People and relatives confirmed people’s health needs were responded to.A relative told us, “Staff would notify me if they noticed a change in my relations condition, if they discovered a rash or sore, so I could notify the GP”.

Staff were aware of people’s health needs and the support they needed. People’s health needs were assessed, and plans were in place to monitor these conditions.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were identified, assessed and reviewed. Staff confirmed they were aware of people’s assessed needs and how to deliver support in line with this.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff were not always able to demonstrate an understanding of this area when asked. We viewed the training matrix; this demonstrated that some staff had not received up to date Mental Capacity and DoLS training.

However, capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place when needed to ensure the Mental Capacity Act was applied.