Archived: Bluebird Care (Kensington and Chelsea)

Updated 18 July 2018

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.

Why we inspected – This was a routine inspection as we rated this service ‘good’ in August 2016. However, we brought this inspection forward as we had received some information of concern about this service. We were aware of one safeguarding allegation regarding alleged financial abuse; we confirmed with the provider at the time that they had taken appropriate action to report and investigate this.

Prior to carrying out this inspection we looked at information we held about the service, such as notification of serious incidents that the provider was required to tell us about. We also asked the provider to complete a provider information return (PIR). This is a form which asks the provider to tell us what they think they are doing well and their plans to develop the service. We also spoke with a contracts manager from the local authority.

This inspection took place on 13 and 14 June. and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The service was carried out by a single adult social care inspector with 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.

In carrying out this inspection we spoke with the director, care manager, deputy care manager and training co-ordinator. We looked at records of care and support for six people who used the service and records of medicines management for five people. We looked at rotas for eight care workers and records of electronic call monitoring for six people. We looked at records of recruitment and supervision for six care workers and records relating to the management of the service, such as audits, training records, policies and staff communications.

After the site visit we made calls to eight care workers, 11 people who used the service and two relatives of people who used the service.

Updated 18 July 2018

We carried out this announced inspection on 13 and 14 June 2018. Bluebird Care (Kensington and Chelsea) is a domiciliary care agency and a franchisee of Bluebird Care. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults.

At the time of our inspection this service was providing personal care to 60 people in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Not everyone using this service 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 our last inspection in August 2016 we rated this service ‘good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good’.

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 provider had effective systems to assess people’s care needs and to plan their care in a way which met their needs. Care workers used an electronic system to record the care people needed and to demonstrate how they had provided this. Care plans were reviewed frequently as people’s needs changed. People had consented to their care and the provider made sure that people’s capacity was assessed and that care was delivered in people’s best interests.

People’s medicines were managed safely. This included assessing the support people required and operating an electronic record of medicines support. Records were checked regularly by managers to ensure that people received their medicines as planned. Where there were risks to people’s safety these were assessed by the provider and suitable mitigation plans were in place, including those relating to moving and handling needs. When incidents had taken place or complaints received, managers acted on these and investigated what had taken place, and were able to learn from when things had gone wrong.

The provider operated safer recruitment measures and carried out appropriate training and spot checks to ensure that care workers were suitable for their roles and had the right skills to care for people. Care workers arrived on time and managers used an electronic call monitoring system to protect people against missed and late visits.

People told us that they were treated with respect by care workers. There were measures in place to ensure that care workers understood how to promote people’s dignity and this was regularly checked by managers. Care workers were able to promote people’s health by observing when a person appeared unwell or in need of additional support and took the right action to address this.

The service took account of people’s cultural needs and provided the right information to care workers to ensure that these were met. People received support to make sure they had enough to eat in a way which met their cultural needs and their preferences. The provider had measures in place to protect people from the risk of dehydration.

People had regular reviews of their care and managers monitored people to make sure that they happy with the standard of care provided. Staff told us they received the right support from managers.