Bluebird Care (Reigate)

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good.

At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care and treatment met people’s needs and reflected their individual preferences. Care plans detailed people’s routines, choices and communication needs, which enabled staff to deliver consistent, personalised care.

Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to person‑centred care by promoting independence, seeking consent and supporting people in line with their care plans. This ensured people retained choice, control and dignity.

Staff recorded detailed and individualised daily notes which reflected the care provided and informed updates to care planning. For example, we read one person’s daily notes which were exceptionally person centred and showed how staff had engaged with them talking in depth about their personal life history and memories and all the things that really mattered to them.

People had access to a copy of their care plan in their home and were involved in discussions about their care, which supported a consistent and personalised approach to care delivery. A person told us, “They came to see me and my daughter. The care plan is in a folder, and I am happy with what is in there.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated and responsive care. Referrals were made where needed, and care was adjusted in response to changes to help maintain safe and effective support.

There was a clear focus on continuity of care, with information shared to support smooth transitions between services. Where the service was unable to continue care, such as when people’s needs changed, information was passed to alternative providers to help ensure ongoing support was provided. Overall, care was delivered in a flexible and joined-up way that met people’s needs and supported consistent, person-centred outcomes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication needs assessments were undertaken on admission to the service and reviewed regularly. Relatives told us where appropriate, they had been involved in supporting their relative to create and review the care plan with staff. They had access to up-to-date information about their relative on a protected app. The registered manager said, “We have [an open app] which, if [a person] consents, allows [their relative] to see notes, actions, when a carer has come in and when a carer has left.” A staff member said, “I communicate with people in a way that meets their needs by being clear, respectful and patient. I adapt my approach depending on the person. Some people may need information repeated, some may need more time to respond, and others may prefer a particular routine or style of communication. I provide information in a way that is accessible by using simple language, checking understanding, and respecting the person’s communication needs.”

Barriers to people’s communication had been overcome, and people were given information in line with their individual needs and preferences.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People had access to a complaints procedure and were encouraged to feedback about their experience of the service. A person said, ““I have not complained but my [relative] has and it has been acted on…They don’t do anything wrong”.

Feedback was viewed as opportunity for learning and service improvement. Records showed the service addressed feedback in a responsive, understanding, and transparent way. A staff member said, “If a [person] or family member is unhappy about something I would encourage them to contact the office and discuss their concerns, or if they would prefer, I advise I am happy to do this on their behalf.” 

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service had effective systems to respond to emergencies and short‑notice care requests. For existing people, additional support was arranged promptly using known care plans. For new referrals, key information was gathered and assessments completed before care started. Flexible staffing and an on‑call system supported urgent requests, helping ensure safe and continuous care, including outside normal hours. The registered manager told us, “On call is shared…We have an on-call analysis where we do all questions or queries.” This meant leaders were continually reviewing the way in which out of hours requests were managed so people could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff completed training in equality and diversity and told us they were confident in carrying out their role. Staff told us they felt they were effectively equipped to meet the individual needs of people.

Best Practice sheets were completed to identify instances where care exceeded expected standards. One example observed involved a person with dementia who did not speak English as their first language. They were supported by a staff member able to communicate fluently in their native language. This significantly enhanced the quality of care provided and helped the individual feel more comfortable, settled, and understood.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans included information about future wishes and preferences, including end of life discussions where people felt comfortable to have them. Where people had chosen not to discuss this, it was clearly recorded so staff understood and respected their choice. People were supported to make informed decisions while they had the capacity to do so, and their wishes were documented in personalised care plans.