Bluebird Care (Stockton and Hartlepool)

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider kept detailed records of accidents and incidents and reviewed these to identify any patterns or trends. This information was then used to minimise future risk. For example, we saw evidence of a review being brought forward as a result of a person experiencing a number of falls. A member of staff told us, “There are clear systems in place for reporting incidents or concerns, including contacting the office and completing reports. Communication from management helps ensure lessons are learned and improvements are made where needed.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

A full assessment of people’s needs was undertaken before any new packages of care were started. The provider conducted a face-to-face visit, either at home or in hospital to ensure they have a good understanding of the person's needs. Where it was the first time a person had required support from professional carers and family were anxious about the transition, the provider delivered ‘phased in’ care sessions building up to a place where the person was happy with their level of support. A relative told us, “They are very caring and eventually, after about two months my [family member] got very comfortable with them.”

The provider worked closely with several external agencies to ensure safe transitions and ongoing support. A person’s care records demonstrated how the transition back home after a period in hospital was carefully considered and fully documented. Wherever possible the same staff visit to provide support to people. A relative told us, “We know who’s going to come and if there are any changes they let me know.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding concerns were appropriately investigated and escalated to the local authority and care quality commission if necessary. A comprehensive safeguarding tracker was used to record incidents and included lessons learned and actions taken to prevent reoccurrence. Staff had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of how to put this into practice. A staff member told us, “I understand the importance of reporting and escalating any concerns appropriately. I feel confident in doing this.”

People and their relatives told us they felt safe. A relative said, “My [family member] feels safe when they come in. They are not frightened and in fact look forward to [staff] coming.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks relating to people were assessed and managed appropriately. Risk assessments about care were person-centred, proportionate, and regularly reviewed with the person or their representative. Care plans contained evidence of positive risk taking. For example, a person who was at risk of falls was supported in their desire to remain independently mobile around the home. Movement around the house and stairs was supervised by staff but not discouraged. A person told us, “[My carer] is always worrying that I might fall because I wobble. She makes sure that I don't.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Care was delivered in people’s own homes and therefore the provider was not responsible for the upkeep of the environment. However, to keep people and staff safe, the provider carried out health and safety checks of people’s homes to check for any hazards and put measures in place to reduce any risks.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The majority of people and their relatives felt confident that staff had the knowledge and skills to carry out their role. A relative told us, “[Staff] are very good and well trained. I’ve never seen the carers rush anything.”

Staff praised the induction process and ongoing training. A member of staff told us, “We receive regular training, but what stands out most is that management attend clients’ homes and show us routines in practice when care starts. This ensures training is person-specific rather than generic, which really improves the quality of care we deliver.”

The provider followed safe recruitment processes to ensure they employed the right people for the role. There was a consistent staff team working with people wherever possible and the provider was not using any agency staff.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had policies to prevent and control infections. Staff were given protective equipment, such as aprons and gloves. They had received infection control training and understood their responsibilities in managing infections. A staff member told us, “To prevent illness, l maintain infection control by wearing correct PPE (personal protective equipment) at the right time and practice hand hygiene.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People were happy with the way staff supported them with their medicines. One relative told us, “The carers help my [family member] with his medicines. They have a system to double check that nothing is missed and they regularly update it.”

Medicines records were completed accurately and regularly audited by management. Any changes to routine administration were clearly explained. Person-centred guidance was in place for medicines to be taken as and when required.