Bluebird Care (Rotherham) Also known as Trinity Carers Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People and their relatives told us they were involved in the assessment and care planning process. A person told us, “The care team have an app, and we can see the log [care provided] on the phone, it’s very helpful.”

Care plans were formulated using a variety of methods, such as meeting with people's social workers, obtaining health history, and care records. People's likes, dislikes and choices were clearly documented throughout their support plan in line with their assessed needs. This detail enabled staff to know all about the person, their background, current needs and interests.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of effective, person-centred assessment. One member of staff told us, “Through effective communication, we ensure information is provided in the language the person understands best, respecting their preferences and beliefs and involving them fully in each conversation.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The providers systems included evidence-based tools to assess peoples risks and needs and put plans in place to meet them. For example, needs relating to skin integrity. The registered manager told us the systems in place supported people to receive care to meet their needs. Staff undertook a range of training to help deliver evidence-based care. Staff told us training was helpful. Staff regularly met with the registered manager to discuss their work and best practice.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The manager and staff worked well with health and social care professionals. There were various professional involved with the service such as speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and district nurses. People’s physical and emotional needs were well documented and clear records of professional input and outcomes were recorded. Staff told us they worked closely with each other and the registered manager. They took part in face to face and telephone meetings. They shared written information about people’s care. Staff reported any concerns to the registered manager and told us these were acted on.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People and their relatives told us staff supported them when needed to seek support from other professionals. Staff contacted health services and asked other professionals, like community nurses and occupational therapists (OT), for advice when needed. They followed this advice to help people manage their health. Care plans gave clear information for staff to follow about any specific needs, such as diabetes or catheter care.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People and their relatives confirmed these reviews took place and they were in regular contact with the provider. People had a regular review of their care needs. This included regular checks with people and their families to check on their wellbeing and discuss any concerns and allow them to respond and make things better.

People and their families were seen as the experts in their life with a focus on what they can do first, and any help they needed second. Staff had taken great care to ensure peoples voices and choices were heard and to enable people to build and stay in control of their own lives. Feedback from people included, “Bluebird have been an absolute godsend following my discharge from hospital. The support has allowed me to focus on healing properly and kept things ticking along at home in a busy household. I feel I have recovered quicker than I would have if I did not have their support.” Another relative said, “Fantastic! My [relative] is a changed person and has made a friend for life.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People and their relatives told us staff sought consent to their care and support being delivered. The registered provider, the registered manager and staff were passionate about supporting people in the least restrictive way and always considered and acted in people's best interests. The service was skilled in how it obtained people's consent for care and treatment, adapting their approach to suit individuals needs and involving them in related decisions and assessing capacity when needed. One staff member said, “We promote and encourage, independence, choices in decision making, seek consent at all times and promote dignity and respect.”

Records showed us where assessments demonstrated a person was unable to make a specific decision. Capacity assessments were completed and best interest decisions had been made with the involvement of the person, family and appropriate health or care professionals. Examples included administering medicine and personal care.