You are here

Archived: Bluebird Care (Enfield) Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 19 February 2018

During a routine inspection

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older adults living in their own homes. At our last inspection in October 2015 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

The service helped people to stay safe. Staff knew about abuse and how to report it and other incidents or accidents which took place. Risks to people were regularly assessed and there were systems in place to ensure there was enough staff to meet people's needs.

People were supported to take their medicines safely and in accordance with the prescribed instructions. Staff members received the training, support and development opportunities they needed to be able to meet people's needs.

People had a care plan that provided staff with direction and guidance about how to meet their individual needs and wishes. Assessments were carried out to identify any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included any environmental risks in people's homes and any risks in relation to the care and support needs of the person. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and were aware of their care plans.

Staff had been recruited safely, received on-going training relevant to their role and supported by the registered manager. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people in their care. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and responded appropriately as people's needs changed.

Staff spoke positively about the people they supported and were motivated to provide an individualised service in line with people's needs and goals.

People confirmed there was a stable staff team and that care was provided by familiar faces. Staff told us that travel times were sufficient, so they were not rushed.

People's feedback about their experience of the service was positive. People said staff treated them respectfully and asked them how they wanted their care and support to be provided. People told us they had their care visits as planned. Staff mostly arrived on time and stayed for the allotted time. Nobody reported any recent missed visits.

Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection. Supplies were available around the building for staff to use when they needed them.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s views on the service were regularly sought and acted on.

Staff were motivated and proud to work for the service; as a result staff turnover was kept to a minimum ensuring that continuity of care was in place for most people who used the service.

Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and maintained their dignity.

There were processes in place to monitor quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service. We saw that regular visits and phone calls had been made using the service and their relatives in order to obtain feedback about the staff and the care provided.

The service worked in co-operation with other organisations such as healthcare services to deliver effective care and support

The service listened and responded to people’s concerns and complaints,

Inspection carried out on 21 October 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 21 October 2015 and we gave the provider two days’ notice that we would be visiting their head office. At our last inspection in October 2014 the service was not meeting one of the standards we looked at. This related to the effective communication between staff and the people they supported. At this inspection we found that the service was now meeting this standard.

Bluebird Care (Enfield) provides personal care to people living at home. It provides care and support to people of all ages but most of the people using the service at the time of our inspection were older people. There were approximately 52 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were well treated by the staff and felt safe and trusted them.

Staff could explain how they would recognise and report abuse and they understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Where any risks to people’s safety had been identified, the management had thought about and discussed with the person ways to mitigate risks.

People told us that staff usually came at the time they were supposed to or they would phone to say they were running a bit late and confirmed that if two staff were required they would come at the same time.

The service was following robust recruitment procedures to make sure that only suitable staff were employed at the agency.

Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the medicines that people they visited were taking. People told us they were satisfied with the way their medicines were managed.

People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the staff and told us they had confidence in their abilities and staff told us that they were provided with training in the areas they needed in order to support people effectively.

Staff understood that it was not right to make choices for people when they could make choices for themselves and people’s ability around decision making, preferences and choices were recorded in their care plans and followed by staff.

People told us they were happy with the support they received with eating and drinking and staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and preferences.

People confirmed that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in the planning of their care and support. Care plans included the views of people using the service and their relatives. Relatives told us they were kept up to date about any changes by staff at the office.

People and their relatives told us that the management and staff were quick to respond to any changes in their needs and care plans reflected how people were supported to receive care and treatment in accordance with their needs and preferences.

People told us they had no complaints about the service but said they felt able to raise any concerns without worry.

The agency had a number of quality monitoring systems including yearly surveys for people using the service, their relatives and other stakeholders. People we spoke with confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this. They felt the service took their views into account in order to improve service delivery.

Inspection carried out on 3 September 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection.We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on discussions with management during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The provider had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place and staff received appropriate training and information. Staff understood their responsibilities in safeguarding the people they supported and who to contact in the event of a concern.

Problems highlighted at the previous inspection in relation to the provision of care for those people who required two care workers had been addressed and additional checks had been introduced to make sure the correct number of staff were available. Recruitment practice was safe and thorough and ensured suitable checks were in place with regard to qualifications, employment history, identity and criminal records. There was suitable induction training for new staff and on-going supervision checks to ensure staff carried out their duties safely.

People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. People we spoke with told us their care workers always protected their privacy when offering personal care.

Systems were in place to make sure accidents and incidents were reported along with complaints and other concerns and action was taken when required. This reduced risks to people and helped the service to monitor its performance.

There were procedures for managing emergencies and staff were aware of relevant contact details to access help and support.

Is the service effective?

People using the service experienced care which was planned and delivered to meet their needs and to mitigate any risks. People using the service and their relatives were involved in the development of their care plans. Care needs were reviewed on a regular basis and care plans could be modified if needs changed. Records showed the care delivered reflected the current care plan.

People we spoke with told us their care workers were mostly punctual and carried out their duties effectively, although views were mixed. One person we spoke with said, �I�ve had problems with them in the past but the carers I have now are exceptional.� Several people we spoke with felt the service did not always keep them adequately informed if there were delays or alterations to scheduled visits.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they experienced. Staff we spoke with were aware of the importance of respecting people choices in how their care was delivered. People we spoke with told us their care workers were kind and helpful and always willing to meet their needs. They told us they were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. People we spoke with told us their care workers always protected their privacy when offering personal care. One person remarked, �They�re very kind, they treat me very well.�

Is the service responsive?

The relative of a person commented in regard to the quality of staff, �The standard is very mixed. Some of the carers we�ve had have been excellent but others have been incompetent and unable to speak English well enough to communicate properly.�

People using the service received six monthly telephone reviews of the care they received during which people were encouraged to express their views. The provider conducted an annual customer satisfaction survey which indicated a satisfactory level of service.

There was a written complaints procedure which was readily available for people using the service. People were aware of the written procedure. Complaints had been recorded and had been investigated and managed correctly. One person using the service told us, �I have made a complaint in the past and it was sorted very quickly. They�ve improved and are much better now.�

Is the service well-led?

Managers conducted regular checks at the homes of people using the service while care workers were there to ensure the care delivered was of good quality and in line with needs. The provider had a variety of systems to monitor the quality of service provided and audit their performance. People using the service and their relatives were provided with information about the service and were contacted regularly to obtain their feedback and views.

Inspection carried out on 9 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service and three members of staff including the manager and care staff.

Most of the people we spoke with told us that they were involved in their care. They told us that they had been able to arrange changes to their care packages and carers listened to their wishes. The provider made appropriate arrangements to ensure consent was obtained from people who used the service.

All the people we spoke with were happy with the care they received. They told us that carers knew what care they required and that they would recommend the service. Although there were arrangements in place for the service to meet people's needs, care was not always delivered appropriately and care plans did not always have sufficient detail.

Although most people had no issues with the timeliness of carers, those that required two carers told us they often only received one. The provider had appropriately experienced, trained and qualified staff and had arrangements in place to check that staff were available when required.

Although it was not always clear that staff were involved in their professional development, staff were supported and developed to provide safe care.

Although a few records were not up to date, records were appropriately stored and destroyed. Most records were current and fit for purpose.

Inspection carried out on 24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People using the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. This included contact names and numbers and how to make a complaint. People were involved with decision-making and a person we spoke with said they were happy because �carers do what I want.�

Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people�s safety and welfare. A person using the service told us their carer was �like a sister to me.� Systems in place enabled people�s needs to be met and regularly reviewed.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse. A member of staff we spoke with knew to report any concerns to their manager and staff had received safeguarding training. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and support safely and to an appropriate standard. Carers were described as �very confident and polite.�

People using the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and support and they were acted upon. Random spot checks were undertaken regularly in people�s homes and any issues identified were managed. Only two complaints had been made in 2012 and we saw several compliments on file.