Updated 6 June 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type:
Bluebird Care (Milton Keynes) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger and older adults. Some of the people receiving the service had complex health conditions.
Not everyone using the service receives regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (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 consider any wider social care provided.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to ensure there was someone available to facilitate the inspection.
Inspection site visit activity started on 24 April 2019 and ended on 26 April 2019. We visited the office location on 24 and 26 April 2019 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. We made telephone calls to people, their families and staff on 25 April 2019.
What we did:
We reviewed the information we had about the service which included any notifications that had been sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.
We contacted the health and social care commissioners who monitor the care and support that people receive.
Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The provider returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report.
During the inspection, we spoke with five people who used the service and five people’s relatives. We also spoke with nine members of staff, including care staff, care supervisors, care co-ordinators, the registered manager and the provider.
We looked at various records, including care records for nine people. We also examined records in relation to the management of the service such as staff recruitment files, quality assurance checks, staff training and supervision records, safeguarding information and accidents and incident information.