Mutual Benefit Care Limited t/a Bluebird Care - Suite 4, Westgate House

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The vision of Bluebird Care was to promote a service in which people ‘have maximum control over their lives and remain at home for as long as possible.’ All staff and senior management demonstrated this clear vision and a positive person-centred culture was seen throughout.

Staff worked hard to meet people’s complex needs in the community and worked creatively with partner agencies to enable people to remain living at home. We heard many examples of how skilled staff supported people with complex needs at home, who would otherwise have required residential care. Staff had set high standards for themselves and this promoted an exceptionally person-centred service tailored to people’s individual needs.

People and their relatives spoke of the positive support, guidance and healthcare interventions people had received. They were full of praise for the staff in terms of their kindness and compassion. People were 'very happy' with the service they received. We received positive comments about their views and experiences.

People told us they felt safe because the staff were kind, caring and compassionate, and had an excellent understanding of the needs of the people they supported. People and their families viewed the staff as experts in their knowledge and skills when supporting people with complex health needs. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed and plans had been developed to minimise risks to people.

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

The registered manager and extended leadership team offered strong leadership and had a clear vision about the direction of the service. They were committed to improving people's lives and ensuring people could live in their own home for as long as possible. The management team were an integral part of the overall care team at Bluebird Care. The registered manager worked closely with partner agencies and services to promote best practice within the service and make a positive impact to people’s lives.

There was an effective quality assurance system in place to ensure people received the best possible service. The registered managers had developed a strong leadership team within the service to ensure the high standards implemented were sustained in their absence. The service benefitted from a positive culture which challenged perceptions, improved the confidence of people and had a positive impact on the lives of the people using the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 4 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection on 2 December 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People received individualised care which reflected their personal preferences, wishes and routines. They were mostly supported by staff who knew them well. They liked to have the consistency of staff who were known to them but accepted at times new staff needed to attend to their needs. Wherever possible new staff shadowed existing staff so they could establish a relationship with people. People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness. They said staff were “excellent”, “competent and caring”, “they are really nice ladies, lovely” and “on the whole they are very good”. People’s care records were kept up to date with their changing needs and by closely working with health care professionals the risks to people’s health and well-being were reduced. People were supported to eat and drink. They were encouraged to make choices about their care and support and to be as independent as possible.

People were supported by staff who had access to training and support to acquire and maintain the skills and knowledge they needed to meet their needs. They were supported to develop in their roles through individual meetings and annual appraisals. The skills of staff were recognised through a monthly carer of the month award and by nurturing their skills to develop further. Changes had been introduced to improve the effectiveness of their work, working in teams and improving the office systems for allocation of staff to people using the service. Further improvements were planned to reduce gaps in rosters and to pay staff for travel time.

People’s views were sought as part of the quality assurance process to drive through improvements to the service. Feedback about poor communication between people and the office had resulted in changes to the way in which office staff worked. A range of quality assurance systems monitored the standards of care provided. The Bluebird franchisor also monitored the quality of the service delivered to ensure they maintained the quality of home care and support they expected of their franchisees. The registered manager and senior staff kept up to date with national and local changes in legislation and guidance.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People were positive about the care they received. They said they had confidence in staff. Some people reflected that staff were often a little late. People told us that they were able to complain if needed and felt listened to. The provider undertook satisfaction surveys and used complaints and incidents as a learning opportunity.

We found that medication was administered safely and staff received appropriate training. Although care records were generally good, we found there were some inconsistencies in the records that we reviewed. The provider was in the process of changing the paperwork and also planned to introduce more structured quality reviews of record keeping.