You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The inspection took place on 1 August and was announced. The inspection continued on 3 August 2017 and was announced.

Bluebird Care (Southampton) provides domiciliary support services and 24 hour care to people in their own homes. The agency provides care and support to a wide range of people including older people, people diagnosed with dementia and people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 62 people receiving personal care from the service. There was a central office base in Southampton.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 and staff told us that the service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received training in safeguarding adults.

Care plans were in place which detailed the care and support people needed to remain safe whilst having control and making choices about how they lived their life. The service used an online system which held care files and also included guidelines to make sure staff supported people in a way they preferred. Risk assessments were completed, regularly reviewed and up to date.

Medicines were managed safely, securely stored in people’s homes, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s support needs and received regular training as well as training specific to their roles for example, nutrition and dementia.

Staff received regular supervisions and annual appraisals which were carried out by the registered manager, care manager and senior supervisors.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and training records showed that they had received training in this. Consent to care was sought and people’s capacity was assessed when necessary and best interest decisions made as appropriate.

People were supported to eat and drink enough whilst maintaining a healthy diet. Food and fluid intake was recorded for those who were under monitoring for this.

People were supported to access healthcare services. We were told that health professionals visit people in their homes.

People told us that staff were caring. During home visits we observed positive interactions between the registered manager and people. People said they felt comfortable with staff supporting them. People said that staff treated them in a dignified manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes, interests and communication needs. This meant that people were supported by staff who knew them well.

We were given examples of how staff had gone above and beyond their roles to deliver good care. These demonstrated a true commitment to people and the passion staff had to deliver care and support which was responsive and effective to meeting people’s needs.

Bluebird Care Southampton were committed to community engagement and were able to show us how they had taken part in local fundraising and raising awareness events.

A ‘Sparkle of the month’ scheme had been put in place. People were nominated by staff to receive a free activity covered by the organisation. This benefitted people who may otherwise be isolated whilst also building and maintaining positive working relationships.

People had their care and support needs assessed before using the service and care packages reflected people’s needs in these. We saw that these were regularly reviewed by the care manager and senior supervisors with people, families and other health and social care professionals.

The service had systems in place to capture and respond to people’s feedback. People were asked if they were happy with the support

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service was safe. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s assessed care and support needs.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because risk assessments and business continuity plans were in place and up to date.

People were safe because medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines

Effective

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service was effective. Staff understood the principles of decision making and consent to care was sought appropriately.

Staff received comprehensive training to give them the skills they required to carry out their roles.

People were supported to maintain healthy balanced diets.

Staff worked with external professionals and people were supported to access health care services.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service was caring.

Staff delivered care that demonstrated true passion and commitment to the people they were supporting.

Compliments written to the service from relatives reflected kind and tender care delivered to their loved ones.

People were supported by staff that used person centred approaches to deliver the care and support they provided.

Staff had a good understanding of the people they cared for, promoted independence and supported them in decisions about how they would like to live their lives.

People were supported by staff that promoted independence and respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service was responsive. Care files were personalised with guidelines which were up to date and regularly reviewed.

People were supported by staff that recognised and responded to their changing needs.

There were systems in place for people, relatives and stakeholders to feedback to the service.

People and their families were aware of the complaints procedure and felt able to raise concerns with staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service was well led. Relatives and staff spoke highly about the service.

Effective quality monitoring was in place and improvements acted upon within appropriate timeframes. However a system was not in place to analyse data for trends and learning.

The management all promoted and encouraged an open working environment by including people and recognising staff achievement.

The service was committed to community engagement and were able to show us how they had taken part in local fundraising and raising awareness events.

Management delivered support hours to people as and when required.

Quality checks were carried out on staff which drove quality of care delivered to people.