You are here

Bluebird Care (Milton Keynes) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird Care (Milton Keynes) on 8 July 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Bluebird Care (Milton Keynes), you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 24 April 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Bluebird Care (Milton Keynes) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes in Milton Keynes and the surrounding area. At the time of the inspection 90 people were receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they would recommend the service to others. One person said, “There’s no improvements they could make, they’ve got to know what I like and when, they’ve got to know me.” Another person said, “Bluebird are as good as it [home care] can be, I’m more than satisfied with them.”

People continued to be cared for safely and with compassion.

Staff were friendly, caring and passionate about their work; they treated people with respect and maintained their dignity.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was approachable, understood the needs of people, and listened to staff.

People had personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. We have made a recommendation about mental capacity assessments.

People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs.

Staff had access to the support, supervision and training they required to work effectively in their roles.

Information was provided to people in an accessible format to enable them to make decisions about their care and support.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints received.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements.

The service met the characteristics for a rating of “good” in all the key questions we inspected. Therefore, our overall rating for the service after this inspection was “good”.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 21 October 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection carried out on 21 September 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 21 and 22 September 2016.

Bluebird Care (Milton Keynes) provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. They provide care for people with a range of different needs, including older people, people with learning disabilities or other neurological conditions. On the day of our inspection the service was providing care to 85 people.

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 were kept safe by members of staff who were knowledgeable about abuse and the actions they should take to safeguard people against it, including recording and reporting procedures. Risk assessments had been carried out to monitor hazards and risks and to put systems in place to reduce them as far as possible. Staff members had been robustly recruited with background checks carried out to ensure they were of good character. There were also enough members of staff to ensure people's calls were made as scheduled. Where people required support with administration of their medicines, staff were able to do this and had been trained to make sure they could do so safely.

Staff members had been sufficiently trained to ensure they were able to meet people's specific needs. They also received regular supervision and support to help them develop their skills and discuss any concerns they may have. People were provided with choices and were encouraged to make their own decisions wherever possible. If people were unable to make their own decisions, there were systems in place to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. If necessary, staff provided people with support to manage their nutritional intake and appointments with healthcare professionals.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by members of staff. There were positive relationships between people and members of staff and people were able to see regular staff members to help these professional relationships develop. People and their family members had been involved in planning their care and support, to ensure it was in accordance with their wishes, and were also provided with information about the service. Staff members worked to ensure they treated people with dignity and respect at all times.

Care plans were person-centred and contained specific information about people's individual needs and wishes. Initial assessments were carried out to ensure the service could meet people's needs and care plans were regularly reviewed, to ensure they were up-to-date and reflected people's changing needs. There were systems in place to record feedback, including complaints, and take action in response to them.

There was a positive and open culture at the service. People and their relatives were happy with the care that staff members gave, as well as the office-based and management staff. The registered manager was accessible to people and their relatives, and members of staff felt well supported by the registered manager and the provider. There were also quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of care being provided.