You are here

Archived: Bluebird Care (Wiltshire South) Good

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

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 December 2017

Bluebird Care (Wiltshire South) provides a care at home service for adults in Salisbury, Amesbury and the surrounding area. At the time of our inspection 47 people were receiving personal care from the service. The service was registered in March 2016 and this is the first inspection.

This inspection took place on 25 October 2017. This was an announced inspection which meant the provider knew two days before we would be visiting. This was because the location provides a home care service. We wanted to make sure the manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to support our inspection.

A registered manager was not in post 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The previous registered manager left their post at the service in April 2017. A new manager was in post and had submitted an application to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The provider had a condition of registration that a registered manager must be in post at Bluebird Care (Wiltshire South). We will monitor this to ensure the service does not continue to operate without a registered manager.

People who use the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff and management. Comments from people included, “They know my needs and will anticipate what I would like doing”, “The carers always ask me what I would like doing” and “They’re super. They always do what I want them to do. They have the right skills”.

People told us they felt safe when receiving care and were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. Comments from people included, “I get details of who’s coming out to me and they usually stick to that. I feel safe with the staff coming out to me from Bluebird” and “I feel safe with the carers they send round to us”. The relative we spoke to also felt safe, commenting “We’re confident with the care they provide and feel safe with them in our home”.

Staff understood the needs of the people they were providing care for. Staff were appropriately trained and skilled. They received a thorough induction when they started working for the service and demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs. Comments from staff included, “It’s a well managed service and they are very supportive. The good support [we receive] makes all the difference”, “The management is very good and organised. They value us as staff and want to provide a good service to people” and “We receive good support and feel valued and cared for. It has the feel of a small family company, with the back up of a big brand”.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People had regular meetings to provide feedback about their care and there was an effective complaints procedure. People and their relatives felt they could contact the office if needed and were confident they would receive help with their enquiry.

The provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the service provided. Feedback from people and their relatives was encouraged and was used to make improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 December 2017

The service was safe.

People who use the service said they said they felt safe when receiving care.

There were sufficient staff to meet people�s needs safely. People felt safe because staff treated them well and they had met staff before they received care from them.

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse. Risks people faced were assessed and action taken to manage the risks.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 December 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had suitable skills and received training to ensure they could meet the needs of the people they cared for.

People�s health needs were included in their care plans. Staff supported people to access health services where necessary.

Staff understood whether people were able to consent to their care and were aware of action they needed to take where people did not have capacity to consent.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 December 2017

The service was caring.

People spoke positively about staff and the care they received.

Care was delivered in a way that took account of people�s individual needs and in ways that maximised their independence.

Staff provided care in a way that maintained people�s dignity and upheld their rights. People�s privacy was protected and they were treated with respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People were supported to make their views known about their care and support. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

People were aware of the complaints procedures and action had been taken to investigate and respond to any concerns or complaints received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 December 2017

The service was well led.

There was a strong leadership team who promoted the values of the service. There were clear reporting lines from the care staff through to senior management level.

Systems were in place to review incidents and audit performance, to help identify any themes, trends or lessons to be learned.

Quality assurance systems involved people who use the service, their representatives and staff. People's views were used to improve the quality of the service.