Bluebird Care (Rotherham) Also known as Trinity Carers Limited

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 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 service and staff demonstrated a person-centred culture, which they embedded in assessments and support plans and reflected in the care and support people received.

People and relatives did not raise any concerns about incidents or how staff managed them. Staff understood the process for supporting people who experienced an incident or fall and described how they reported and recorded these events. Staff listened to safety concerns, investigated them, and reported safety events. They thoroughly investigated accidents and incidents, used the findings to improve the service, and apologised when things went wrong.

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.

People felt involved in their care and relatives felt staff engaged with them and other professionals when needed. A relative told us, “Bluebird did a full assessment with us before we started using them, and they introduced the carer too. It was very well organised.”

The service worked in partnership with other professionals such as GP's, specialist occupational therapists (OT) and speech and language therapists (SaLT) to support people to access healthcare when they needed it. Records detailed how staff worked effectively with GP’s, district nurses and other external healthcare professionals.

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.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. People told us they felt safe receiving support from staff. A relative said, “We wouldn’t be without them, and [relative] is safe and happy.” Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to keep people safe from abuse. Staff told us they felt comfortable to report concerns and action would be taken. The registered manager ensured any incidents were reported to the appropriate body and had a system in place to share any learning from safeguarding incidents with staff.

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.

People and their relatives felt staff understood people’s needs and managed risks to their safety. Staff could describe how they supported people to minimise risks to their safety, for example, when using equipment to help people transfer and when supporting people to prevent their skin from becoming sore. The registered manager told us they assessed risks to people’s safety and used this information to put plans in place to minimise the risks, with regular reviews in place to monitor these risks. Records showed people had risks to their safety considered. For example, moving and handling, skin integrity, falls and mobility risks were considered, and plans put in place to meet the individual needs and reduce the risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People and relatives raised no concerns with how staff supported them to maintain a safe environment. They carried out assessments which included checking equipment was safe. There were systems in place to ensure safe access when staff visited people to provide support.

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. People and their relatives told us that staff arrived on time, stayed for the full duration of visits, and had the experience and training needed to support them safely and effectively. One relative said, “The carers turn up on time unless they have a problem and then they let us know.”

Staff received a thorough induction followed by a training programme which continued throughout their employment. Staff received support to carry out their role effectively. One relative said, “The staff are all really good, very thorough and know what they are doing and very professional.” Another said, “The staff are very competent, [relative] has all sorts of equipment, stairlifts and other mobility equipment and they [staff] are all very competent.”

The provider had a robust recruitment policy and process which helped them recruit suitable staff. This included obtaining pre-employment checks such as Disclosure and Baring Service checks (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.

People and relatives, we spoke with did not raise any concerns about infection control. Staff told us they were provided with equipment, including gloves and aprons, to ensure that they could provide care safely. All staff were trained in infection control.

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.

Medicines were administered and stored safely. Staff received training and competency assessments prior to administering medicines to people. Some people were prescribed medicines on an ‘as and when’ required basis, often referred to as PRN. Protocols were in place to help make sure people received their PRN medicines appropriately. Where people received support with medicines they raised no concerns. One relative said, “The carers do [relatives] medication. It was in a dosette [pill dispenser] but is now in individual boxes and they [staff] handle it very well.”