The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Bluebird Care (Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea)

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

77 Ashmill Street, London, NW1 6RA (020) 7976 6163

Provided and run by:
Zocalo Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 24 March to 1 April 2026.

Bluebird Care (Westminster, Kensington Chelsea) is a care agency registered to provide personal care and nursing care to people living in their own homes. The agency provided care to younger and older adults, including people living with dementia and people with a learning disability. At the time of our assessment most people being supported by the service were older adults

The last rating for the service was outstanding (published 19 April 2018). Following this assessment, the rating has remained outstanding.

The provider worked collaboratively with other professionals to deliver exceptionally person-centred care. They coordinated hospital discharges and made sure people were safe when they returned home after hospital stays. Their support extended beyond care tasks and included advocating for people, liaising with discharge teams, coordinating transport and arranging equipment. The provider partnered with a local nursing home which provided rehabilitation and a community physiotherapy team. Their teamwork ensured people received a holistic package of care which led to life-enhancing outcomes.

There was a culture where staff and others working with people had a deep understanding of their individual needs, preferences and choices. Managers worked closely with people to assess and plan personalised care. They frequently found ways to overcome barriers and support people to achieve personal objectives, even when other professionals had initially thought these were not achievable.

Staff had exceptional knowledge of the individual people they cared for. Staff were encouraged to regularly go above and beyond expected care to provide meaningful support, which enhanced people’s health, wellbeing and social connections. Staff were empathetic and kind. The provider matched staff personalities and interests to reflect the wishes people had expressed.

There was an extremely person-centred culture which was driven by skilled, knowledgeable and experienced managers. They had robust systems for monitoring the quality of the service and driving continuous improvements. Managers valued staff wellbeing and recognised this as an essential part of the organisation. Managers were visible and role-modelled the values of equality, diversity and inclusion.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting many people with a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. Staff undertook specialist training to better understand people’s needs. The provider was committed to ensuring information was accessible and staff knew how to communicate well with the people they supported. The provider enabled positive risk taking and encouraged people to be independent and learn new skills.

23 January 2018

During a routine inspection

This comprehensive inspection took place on 23, 25 and 29 January 2018 and was announced. At the last comprehensive inspection in November 2015 the service was rated as Good.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 85 people in the City of London and the London Borough of Westminster, of which 75 were privately funded. Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Westminster) receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider had involved the whole staff team in driving improvement and had invested in staff and systems which created an open and positive culture throughout the service. Staff were committed, praised the level of support they received and spoke positively about their opportunities to progress within the organisation.

People using the service and their relatives were confident they would be listened to and felt the management team were approachable and felt comfortable getting in touch.

Staff treated people in a way that respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. Two members of staff had been recognised for their outstanding work in supporting people living with dementia.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and compassionate, knew how to provide the care and support they required whilst also going the extra mile for them. Regular care assistants knew the people they supported and showed concern for people’s health and welfare.

The provider was passionate and worked with other agencies with the aim to create a dementia friendly community. People were supported to access events, follow their interests and maintain relationships with friends and family to increase their health and well-being.

People were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. An initial assessment was completed from which care plans and risk assessments were developed. Records were accessible to staff and relatives on digital devices so the latest information could be seen. Care was personalised to meet people’s individual needs and preferences and was reviewed if there were any significant changes.

Risks to people were identified during an initial assessment with detailed guidance and control measures in place to enable staff to support people safely.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service and staff had a good understanding of how to identify and report any concerns. Staff were confident that any concerns would be investigated and dealt with.

People who required support with their medicines received them safely and all staff had completed training in the safe administration of medicines, which included observations and competency assessments. Alerts were set up on the software used that informed the office if people’s medicines had not been given by a specific time.

People’s nutritional needs and preferences were recorded in their care plans and staff were aware of the level of support required. Care assistants told us they notified the office if they had any concerns about people’s health and we saw evidence of this in people’s care records. We also saw people were supported to maintain their health and well-being through access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs, occupational therapists and physiotherapists.

The provider had a robust staff recruitment process and staff underwent the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service. Continuity levels were assessed to ensure people had regular care workers and consistent levels of care.

Care assistants received a comprehensive induction training programme to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively and shadowed more experienced staff before they started to work independently. Staff received regular supervision and told us they felt supported with the supervision they received.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The provider was aware of what to do and who to contact if they had concerns that people lacked capacity to make certain decisions. We observed that care assistants respected people’s decisions and gained their consent before they carried out care tasks.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, understand the experiences of people who used the service and identify any concerns.

13 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Bluebird Care (Westminster) is a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people living in their own homes. The inspection was announced and we informed the provider 48 hours before the inspection that we would be coming, in order to ensure that staff would be available at the service. At the time of the inspection 25 people were receiving personal care, and this was the first inspection since the service registered on 19 July 2015.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with care staff. All of the care staff we spoke with understood their role and responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe and protecting them from abuse. Care staff understood how to raise any safeguarding concerns. Risks were assessed and individual risk management plans were implemented, to enable people to maintain their independence as much as possible while ensuring their safety.

Staff had received training about how to support people with their medicines needs if required, in accordance with people’s wishes and assessed needs.

The provider employed sufficient skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. Rigorous pre-employment checks were conducted before care staff were appointed, in order to ascertain whether staff were suitable to provide care and support for people who used the service.

Staff received appropriate training, supervision and support to effectively meet people’s needs. This included training and guidance in relation to seeking people’s consent before providing personal care and supporting people to make their own choices and decisions.

Care plans showed that people’s healthcare needs had been identified and care staff supported people to attend medical appointments, where necessary.

People and their relatives told us they received kind and compassionate care, and were treated with respect. Staff described how they promoted people’s dignity and protected their entitlement for privacy and confidentiality.

The provider supported staff to understand the emotional and social needs of people living with dementia and was actively involved in achieving positive local outcomes to improve the quality of life for people living with dementia and their informal carers.

The service responded to people’s needs and provided personalised care. Care staff knew people well and were able to describe how they would respond to people’s needs and wishes. The provider actively sought feedback from people and their relatives, and made positive changes as a result of people’s views and suggestions.

People received a well-led service. The management team had a clear vision about the values of the service and the standard of care and support people should consistently receive. This was understood by care staff, who felt the management team encouraged and supported good practice. Systems were in place to continually monitor the quality of the service and any areas that required improvement were promptly attended to.