Background to this inspection
Updated
10 April 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Service and service type:
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available.
Inspection site visit activity started on 11 February and ended on 14 February 2019. We visited the office location to see the registered manager and to review care records and policies and procedures.
What we did:
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included checking incidents the provider must notify us about, such as serious injuries and abuse. We sought feedback from the local authority, Healthwatch and professionals who work with the service. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection, we spoke with six people who used the service and eight relatives. We spoke with four members of the care staff, one of which who also carried out the role of the care coordinator. We also spoke with the registered manager and a care supervisor.
We reviewed a range of records. This included three people's care records and three staff files. We also viewed training and supervision records and records relating to the safety and management of the service.
After the inspection, we asked the registered manager to provide us with a variety of policies and procedures and additional information. All information was sent within the required timeframe. We used all this information to help form our judgements detailed within this report.
Updated
10 April 2019
About the service: Bluebird Care (Rushcliffe & Melton) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It currently provides a service to older adults. At the time of the inspection, 56 people were receiving support with personal care.
People’s experience of using this service:
• The risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and used to reduce the risks to their safety. People felt safe when staff supported them. Staff understood how to report any concerns that could lead to people experiencing avoidable harm.
• Staff arrived on time for each call. They completed all required tasks. People’s medicines were managed safely.
• People felt staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. There were clear processes in place for continued learning to ensure people received safe care and support.
• People were provided with care and support which protected them from discrimination. Staff were well trained and had their competency to carry out their role regularly assessed. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.
• People received the support they needed with their meals and they had access to other health and social care agencies where needed. People were supported to make decisions about their care; the provider ensured these were made in accordance with appropriate legislation.
• People praised the approach of the staff and they looked forward to their visits. People were treated with dignity and respect and people found staff to be kind and caring. People were supported to make decisions about their care needs and staff respected their wishes. People’s records were stored securely to protect their privacy.
• People received person-centred care and support that considered their personal choices and preferences. Staff had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs. People could make choices about their care and records were amended to reflect those choices. People had access to information in a format they could understand. Complaints were handled appropriately and in-line with the provider’s complaints policy. People did not currently receive end of life care.
• Since our last inspection the provider had introduced a variety of new initiatives which were designed to continually monitor, assess and improve the quality of the care people received. These had started to take fruition at the time of the inspection. People were overwhelmingly pleased with the support provided and praised the personal approach of the staff, the registered manager and the provider. Staff had a thorough understanding of people’s needs. They enjoyed their role and welcomed the supportive working environment. Innovation was encouraged, people’s views were welcomed and valued. All people and relatives told us they would recommend this service to others.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated as Good (May 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to review information we receive about the service until the next scheduled inspection. If we receive any information of concern we may inspect sooner than scheduled.