The inspection took place on 22 and 30 March 2017 and was unannounced. Bluebird Care (Carlisle) was re-registered with CQC in August 2015 and this was the first rated inspection for the service.The service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. Services provided include; Help with personal care and hygiene; getting up and going to bed; medicines; helping at mealtimes; support with shopping, laundry and housework.
The service is available to people aged 18 or over who may be living with physical or learning disabilities, sensory loss or impairment, mental health illness or dementia.
The service is available in Carlisle and surrounding areas. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people receiving a personal care service from this provider.
There was a registered manager at the service and they were in attendance at the time of our inspection of 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 we spoke to about the service told us that they were very pleased with the service. Staff were described as, “very, very helpful” and “very friendly.” People told us that they felt “safe” with the staff attending them. No one that we spoke to raised any concerns with us about Bluebird Care (Carlisle).
The service had procedures in place and training for staff, to help ensure that people who used the service were protected from the risks of abuse and harm. The sample of care records we reviewed also contained detailed and clear risk assessments to help make sure staff and the people they supported were safe. People who used the service and the staff we spoke to as part of this inspection all told us that copies of these important documents were kept in their homes.
We found that people were supported safely with their medicines, where this formed part of their care package. Staff had undergone training and had been required to update this on a regular basis. Competency checks had been carried out to make sure their practice was safe.
There were emergency plans in place at the service and a robust on-call system. Both staff and people who used the service knew how to use this system.
The staff we spoke to during our inspection all told us that they received training relevant to their job and that they felt well supported by the registered manager and office staff. The staffing records that we reviewed all supported the comments made by care staff. People who used the service, who we spoke to, told us that they felt safe with the care staff supporting them and in their opinion the staff were competent and knew what they were doing.
The staff we spoke to as part of the inspection process told us that the communication systems in place were very good. They thought that they were kept up to date with people’s changing needs. However, some of the people who used the service told us that they were not always told if care staff were going to arrive later than expected. We did not receive any complaints about this and people told us that it was “usually sorted out” when they contacted the office.
People who used the service were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in place at the service supported this practice.
Where people had support with eating and drinking as part of their care package, we saw that there was detailed information about their requirements, needs and preferences, including nutritional assessments.
We found that people who used this service received their support with personal care from a small team of care staff which helped to promote and ensure privacy and dignity was maintained. People had been involved in the development of their care and support plan. People told us that their right to maintain their independence was respected by care staff.
The sample of care plans that we reviewed during our inspection contained detailed information about people’s individual needs and had been written in a person centred style. People had been asked about their views on the quality of the service and there was a complaints process in place, which some people had accessed. We did not receive any complaints about the service from the people we spoke to during our inspection.
The people who used this service who we spoke to were familiar with the registered manager and the staff in office. They knew who to speak to if they needed to and were confident that they would be listened to, with any concerns actioned. There were systems in place to check the quality of the service, including checks on staff practices.
Policies and procedures were in place to help ensure the service operated safely. Internal and external auditing processes were in use. These helped to identify what the service did well and where further improvements could be made. The provider was in the process of implementing new systems to help improve the quality and safety of the service.
We have made a recommendation about the storage of archived documentation.