Bluebird Care Clapham and Streatham

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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.

Incidents and accidents were documented with relevant dates, actions taken and the outcomes. Incidents completed by staff were later reviewed by the management team to ensure appropriate follow-up and learning. When a fall occurred, the provider reviewed the records to identify any patterns or trends, and a risk assessment was completed when necessary.

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.

When a referral was received, an initial assessment was completed. This included gaining the person’s views, wishes and preferences. A care plan was then developed using the information gathered during the initial assessment.

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.

Systems and processes were in place to monitor safeguarding activity. The safeguarding log was maintained effectively and included clear records of actions taken and the dates these were completed. At the time of the assessment, there were no open safeguarding cases.

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 to people’s safety were identified and assessed, and appropriate measures were put in place to keep them safe. This included support with nutrition, manual handling, and general personal care tasks, ensuring care was delivered in a way that met people’s individual needs.

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

Risk assessments of the home environment were completed before care began. Internal and external environmental risk assessments were carried out, including fire safety checks, to ensure the safety of people and staff in their homes. The registered manager told us they were looking to introduce a new template to further strengthen the assessment of risk across the service.

The provider did not always make sure staff received effective support.

Recruitment checks were completed before staff began working with people. These included an interview, verification of 2 references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information on convictions and cautions recorded on the Police National Computer, helping employers make safer recruitment decisions. The provider completed DBS checks every 3 years. However, the process in place had not ensured that changes to DBS status were identified between the renewal cycle for all staff.

Staff were provided with the required training courses, and additional training was sourced in areas such as eating and drinking to meet people’s specific needs. Refresher training was delivered in a single day, during which staff were required to complete a substantial number of mandatory modules. This was potentially the reason we found that some staff had limited knowledge in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Although staff told us they felt well supported in their roles, the systems in place did not ensure clear recording of staff development needs, including agreed learning actions and progress against them.

The management team took prompt action in response to the improvements identified during our visit. This included introducing a signed declaration for staff to confirm any changes to their DBS status, delivering additional training to address the gaps identified, and improving the recording of staff developmental needs.

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’s Infection Prevention and Control Policy set out clear infection control responsibilities for staff. Spot checks were used to observe staff while they were working to ensure they followed infection control procedures correctly.

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.

The service used an electronic MAR (medication administration record) system, which was linked to the tasks staff were required to complete during each visit. If a person refused their medication, the system was updated and the office was automatically notified. Staff were regularly observed and had their competency and knowledge assessed when administering medicines, including how to dispose of medicines safely. PRN protocols were in place to guide staff on how and when to administer medicines prescribed to be given when required.