Bluebird Care (Wolverhampton)

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 that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 and treatment.

People’s preferences were not always fully considered, people told us they did not always receive care at their preferred times and when their preference was for male/female carers, this was not always provided.

Care plans in place considered people’s preferences including their likes and dislikes. Despite this people confirmed these were not always followed. However, staff were able to tell us people’s individual needs and preferences and they told us they delivered day to day care aligned with these.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. The provider told us there were systems in place to monitor and review care. We saw these systems were followed when needed.

People raised concerns they did not always have access to their care record or notes. One relative said, “The carers clock on and off [using] an app on their phone but we or my relation don’t have access to the information they put on it”. Another relative told us, “We couldn’t access day to day records of care. We bought our own book for the carers to fill in”. Other people and relatives told us they were happy with how information was provided. This meant people could not always access the information they wished to access about themselves or their relatives.

However, the provider shared that information was available to people in different formats if they required this. We saw there was reference to people’s communication needed in their care plans. Staff confirmed to us they were aware of these plans.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about if they were happy with the outcomes when they had shared concerns or complaints. One relative said, “I speak with the manager if I have a problem. I feel they tried to do their best but said sometimes it feels like a false solution”. Another relative said, “I have spoken with managers about timekeeping but felt fobbed off by them. They say they’ll try and solve it but it’s an ongoing issue.” Another relative confirmed they were, “Reactive to concerns”. This meant people did not always feel their concerns were listened and responded to.

However, when formal complaints were made there was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure. Following our inspection, the provider sent us feedback they had received from people who used the service. This was mostly positive, but did not match the feedback we received from the people and relatives we spoke with.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the access they had to other health professionals.

The provider told us they worked alongside external agencies who they could engage with if needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

As people told us their care was not always tailored to their preferences, we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences.

However, the provider was aware of some potential inequalities people receiving support may face and there were some systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care.

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.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the planning of end-of-life care.

The service was not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they were aware of action to take if needed and as part of the assessment process this had been discussed with people.