Archived: Bluebird Care (Fareham & Gosport)

Bluebird Care (Fareham & Gosport) provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the agency was providing a service for 58 older people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age.

We last inspected this service on 23 November 2016 and we identified two areas where improvement was required in respect of continuity of care staff and poor communication within the office. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and people were now happy with the service provided.

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.

We received positive feedback from people about the service. All the people who used the service expressed great satisfaction and spoke highly of the care staff. A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.

People felt safe with the service provided by Bluebird Care (Fareham & Gosport) and risks to people were minimized through appropriate risk management. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Bluebird Care (Fareham & Gosport) to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

People were supported to take their medicines safely from suitably trained staff. Medication administration records (MAR) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed. Staff contacted healthcare professionals promptly when they had concerns about people’s health and wellbeing.

People felt they were treated with kindness and compassion and said their privacy and dignity was respected. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and understood that people had the right to make their own choices.

People were supported with their nutritional needs when required. People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role.

Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

There were appropriate management arrangements in place. Staff felt supported by the management and felt they could visit the office and be listened to. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

The inspection was conducted between 23 and 29 November 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our inspection as it was a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure key staff members would be available.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 their regular care staff were skilled at supporting them and meeting their needs. However, they said fill-in staff, who covered when their regular care worker was absent, were not always able to provide effective care and support. The provider was taking action to improve the continuity and consistency of staff who visited to support people in order to address this.

People and their relatives told us there had been significant shortfalls in the quality of service provided over the past year, but noted that noticeable improvements had been made in recent months. There was a quality assurance process in place that focused on continual improvement, but this needed to become embedded in practice and the improvements sustained.

People and their relatives trusted the staff who supported them. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to prevent, identify and report abuse. Risks relating to the environment or the health and support needs of people were assessed and managed effectively.

Medicines were given safely by staff who were suitably trained. Staff recruitment practices were safe and helped ensure only suitable staff were employed. There were enough staff to support people; they were reliable and usually arrived on time.

Staff received appropriate training to support people. They completed an induction programme and were supported in their work by management. Supervision arrangements had been enhanced by the appointment of a care supervisor.

Staff took care to be discreet and unobtrusive when working in people’s homes. They protected people’s privacy and involved them in decisions about their care. They also followed legislation to protect people’s rights, by seeking consent from people before providing care and support.

People received personalised care and support that usually met their individual needs. Care plans provided appropriate information to enable staff to provide care in a consistent way. Staff referred people to healthcare professionals when needed.

The provider sought and acted on feedback from people. There was a suitable complaints policy in place and people knew how to complain. Staff were motivated and enjoyed working at the service. There was an open culture and the provider notified CQC of all significant events.