Bluebird care (Barnsley and Glossop)

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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been ratedgood.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 strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and complete honesty. Staff actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider embedded a learning culture in the service. We saw examples of lessons learnt completed and procedures changed to reflect the findings and improve care and support. Staff were aware of procedures to follow to report and record incidents. We saw accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to identify themes and trends.

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.

We saw evidence in care plans of referrals to health professionals and information was shared and reviewed to ensure people’s needs were met. There were systems in place for staff to follow to raise any issue, concerns or changes in people’s need. This ensured people’s safety was managed effectively.

The registered manager ensured people received smooth transitions between care services and this included when people were admitted to or discharged from hospital. We saw examples where staff had supported people to attend hospital appointments and had been flexible to ensure staff were able to support throughout.

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 registered manager shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and reported incidents immediately to management.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People's capacity was assessed in line with MCA and decisions were made, where people did not have capacity, in their best interest.

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 which mattered to them. Risks associated with people's care were clearly detailed in their care plans all associated risks were identified and managed effectively.

People and their relatives felt staff understood people’s needs and managed risks to their safety. Staff received appropriate training and competency assessments to ensure peoples risks were manged safely. A relative said, “The carers are well trained and effective in all they do. They follow a great routine in accordance with the Care Plan and risk assessments.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Appropriate checks of the environment were carried out for each person they supported. Appropriate risk assessments were in place for staff to follow.

People’s home environmental risk assessment were extremely detailed and were available to all staff to ensure their safety and the persons safety.

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.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff employed to provide consistent care for people. Feedback regarding staffing levels and reliability was positive overall. Most relatives said staff attended consistently and visits were generally completed on time.

The management team had a positive approach to learning and supported staff to attend relevant training to support their development. Staff were supported to complete training and shadowing opportunities before beginning in the role. A staff member said, “The training provided is thorough and well-organized. I have no complaints at all regarding this aspect of the role.”

Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals which provided them with opportunities for ongoing development.

All staff spoken with told us they felt supported. One member of staff told us, “I feel valued and appreciated and have been supported more than ever with work.” However, some staff felt rotas could be better managed, to ensure travel between calls was not too long and be given more notice with rotas, to be able to manage a good work life balance.

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.

Staff had access to appropriate stores of personal protective equipment (PPE). Members of staff had access to infection prevention and control policies and received appropriate training and spot checks to ensure infection control procedures were followed.

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.

Administration of medications was managed safely. Members of staff had access to policies and procedures which supported safe practice. Staff were trained and received competency checks. People who received support from staff with medicines management, all told us they received medicines safely. A relative said, “[name] has Alzheimer’s and they can be very difficult at times, but they [staff] are very skilful at getting [name] to co-operate.”