Archived: Freedom and Lifestyle Limited Also known as Bluebird Care (East Staffs & South Derbyshire

Freedom and Lifestyle Limited is a care at home service providing personal care to 14 people at the time of the inspection. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. Personal care is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where the service provides this help, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

People told us they received safe care and treatment. Staff undertook risk assessments for people they supported and any identified risks were managed well. Care staff understood the importance of safeguarding people they supported and they knew how to report accidents and incidents.

Consideration into a person's mental capacity was not dealt with entirely appropriately. This meant that the service may have been involved in unauthorised restrictions. We have made a recommendation about this that can be seen in the 'Effective' section of this report.

Staff had completed training in the safe administration of medicines. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and, where required, protocols were in place to support people to self-administer their own medicines.

People told us staff visited as planned and they were punctual. The registered manager had processes for monitoring visits and were planning to roll out new visit and support monitoring technology to enable the provider to monitor whether staff visited as planned.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff liaised with health care professionals and supported people to attend appointments. People were supported to make healthy choices in relation to lifestyle. People told us staff helped them to prepare meals and accompanied them to appointments.

Staff received training which enabled them to provide safe and effective care. Senior staff regularly observed staff in practice. Staff received regular supervision from the registered manager and told us they felt supported.

People and their relatives understood how to make a complaint. People told us they felt listened to. There had not been any complaints since the last inspection.

There was information available throughout people’s support plans which enabled staff to provide person-centred care. People and their representatives had been involved in the care planning process.

The registered manager maintained clear records of quality assurance and good governance. People and their relatives provided consistent positive feedback about the registered manager, office staff and individual members of the care staff.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 7 January 2107).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

We inspected this service on 6 December 2016. This inspection was announced. This meant the provider and staff knew we would be visiting the service’s office before we arrived. This was the first inspection since the provider’s registration at this office on the 2 March 2016. The service provides support to people within their own homes. There were 18 people in receipt of personal care support at the time of this inspection visit.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff knew about people’s individual capacity to make decisions and supported people to make their own decisions. When people were unable to consent, decisions were made in their best interests with the involvement of their family and friends. However capacity assessments were not decision specific to ensure all areas of care were assessed.

People received their calls as agreed because there was enough staff available to them. The staff were knowledgeable about the support people needed to enable it to be provided in a safe way. Systems and processes were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff understood what constituted abuse or poor practice and people were protected against the risk of abuse, as checks were made to confirm staff were of good character. People were supported to take their medicine when needed and medicines were managed safely. Equipment was in place to meet people’s diverse needs which enabled them to maintain choice and independence.

Staff were provided with training to develop their skills and enable them to support the people they worked with. Staff felt supported by the management team and received supervision to monitor their conduct and support their professional development.

The delivery of care was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and preferences. People’s needs were assessed and care plans where developed with people and their representatives, which directed staff on how to support them in their preferred way. People were supported to maintain a diet that met their dietary requirements and preferences and were supported to access healthcare services.

People knew how to complain and we saw when complaints were made these were responded to in line with the provider’s policy. Staff felt listened to and were happy to raise concerns. People felt the service was well managed. The provider sought the opinions from people who used the service to bring about changes.

Quality monitoring checks were completed by the provider and manager and when needed action was taken to make improvements. The registered manager and provider understood their responsibilities around registration with us.