You are here

Bluebird Care (Calderdale & Bradford South) Good Also known as Hanson Lane Enterprise Centre

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 May 2018

This inspection took place on 15, 16, 20 and 21 March 2018 and was announced. The provider was given short notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies to make sure the registered manager would be available.

At our previous inspection in October and November 2016 we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ and identified one breach which related to safe care and treatment. Following the previous inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions in Safe and Well Led to at least Good.

Bluebird Care (Calderdale and Bradford South) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to people over the age of 18 years. Not everyone using the agency receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection 71 people were receiving personal care.

The service had a registered manager. 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 majority of people and relatives we spoke with were happy with the care and support provided by staff. They said staff usually arrived on time and stayed the full length of the call. However, three people/relatives told us the timing of calls was a problem and staff did not always stay the full length of the call. The provider agreed to look into these concerns.

People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. Medicines management was safe, although further guidance was needed in relation to ‘as required’ medicines. Safeguarding procedures were in place to protect people from abuse. People were aware of the complaints procedure and knew how to raise concerns.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us they had been involved in the care planning process. Care records were personalised and showed the support the person required from staff at each call. Risk assessments showed any identified risks had been assessed and mitigated. People’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare support as and when needed.

Staff received the induction, training and support they required to meet people’s needs. Staff told us communication was good. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started working in the service.

The company directors and registered manager provided consistent leadership and management. Action had been taken to strengthen and develop the governance systems to improve the overall quality of service delivery. This process was in the early stages and the company directors recognised these systems needed to be fully embedded to ensure all issues were fully identified and addressed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 1 May 2018

The service was not always safe.

Staff recruitment processes ensured staff were safe to work in the service. There were enough staff to provide people with the care and support they required, although the times and durations of calls needed to improve.

Medicines management was safe.

Safeguarding systems helped protect people from abuse. Risks to people�s health, safety and welfare were properly assessed and mitigated.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received the training and support they required for their job role and to meet people�s needs.

People�s rights were protected because the registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received support to ensure their healthcare and nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 May 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was maintained by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed and support plans were person-centred and reflected people�s needs and preferences.

A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 May 2018

The service was well-led.

A new quality audit framework had been introduced to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.

The registered manager provided effective leadership and promoted an open and inclusive culture.