Archived: Bluebird Care Reading and Wokingham

Updated 10 February 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 8 December 2016 and was announced. The provider was given notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that senior staff would be available in the office to assist with the inspection. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service which included notifications they had sent us. Notifications are sent to the Care Quality Commission to inform us of events relating to the service which they must inform us of by law. We looked at previous inspection reports and contacted fifteen community professionals and commissioners for feedback. We received feedback from three commissioners and a training provider.

We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR).This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Following the inspection we contacted nine people and relatives. We spoke with eight members of staff including the registered manager, the two directors, a care manager, a care co-ordinator, and three care workers. We looked at records relating to the management of the service including five people’s care plans and associated records, a selection of policies, five staff files including recruitment records, staff training records, the complaints log and the accident/incident records. We reviewed the quality monitoring systems and audits.

Updated 10 February 2017

The inspection took place on 8 December 2016 and was announced. This was to ensure senior staff would be available to speak with us and assist with the inspection.

Bluebird Care Reading and Wokingham is part of a large national franchise brand Bluebird Care. The service’s office is located on a business park in Reading and covers both the Reading and Wokingham areas. At the time of the inspection the service provided personal care to 29 people.

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.

People told us they were happy and extremely satisfied with the service they received. One person told us, “I would recommend them to anyone.” A relative told us, “They do a very good job.” Other comments we received included, “I’m really satisfied with them.” “They’re never in a rush.” “I get extra help if I need it.” and “Exceptionally good.”

People received safe care from staff who had been trained to protect people and identify signs of abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns and followed the provider’s policies in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing. Robust recruitment procedures helped to ensure only suitable staff were employed at the service.

Risks were assessed, managed and reviewed to help ensure people’s safety. Staff were deployed appropriately and capacity of staffing hours was closely monitored. People were assisted with their medicines safely and told us they received them on time. The use of technology had reduced the risk of medicine errors and allowed instant updates to be made if people’s medicines changed. People were visited by consistent staff members and found this reassuring. They received notification of who would be visiting them so they knew who to expect.

There was clear leadership provided to the staff team from the registered manager who was fully supported by the two directors. A positive, open culture had been developed which embraced the whole team. Staff spoke about the values of the service and how they focussed on putting people first and always trying to do the best for people. They told us they were provided with support and felt able to raise any concerns or issues with the management.

There was a strong focus on developing the service and continually looking for ways to improve. Feedback from people using the service and other stakeholders was carefully considered, analysed and used to drive improvements. Information gained from surveys was shared openly and honestly with people.

The provider valued their staff team and had endeavoured to take steps to retain and develop staff to their full potential. They believed this was the key to delivering high quality, consistent care. A number of measures had been employed to recognise the contribution staff made and this had been appreciated by staff who told us they felt valued and respected. One said, “This is a good company to work for.”

Staff were well trained, they underwent a structured and well developed induction programme before working with people and providing care. Staff were mentored and nurtured through this process to instil the values of the service and develop their skills.

Links with the community had been developed and there was a strong focus on working in co-operation with other organisations. They took opportunities from these relationships to look for ways to enhance and better the lives of people using the service and assist the local community.

The provider had invested in and developed the use of technology to provide safe and effective care for people. They understood how technology could afford accurate monitoring of the service and allow the service to respond promptly to changing needs. Through the use of technology issues were identified quickly and enabled prompt action to be taken.

People benefitted from being cared for by staff who were consistently described as, “caring”, “kind”, “lovely” and "patient”. We were told staff went over and above the call of duty and people said this made a difference to their lives. People also told us staff knew them very well and understood their needs. They all told us they were consulted about their care and staff always checked they were happy about things.

Everyone we spoke with told us staff ensured their dignity and privacy was promoted. Staff spoke about people with respect. Records also indicated people were referred to in a respectful and caring manner.

People’s right to make decisions was respected. Consent was gained before care was provided and if people refused care this was respected.

People's needs were assessed and their support needs were discussed and planned with them. Their individualised care plans were detailed and provided comprehensive guidance for care staff to deliver care in the manner people wished.

People had information on how to make a complaint if they had an issue with the service provided. The provider used complaints to recognise deficits and make improvements.