You are here

Bluebird Care (Leeds North) Good

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 28 February 2019

This inspection took place on 13 and 14 December 2018 and was announced. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults.

Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Leeds North) 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 take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Everyone we spoke with told us the service was safe. Medicines were managed and monitored safely, and staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff were able to describe how they would identify and report signs of abuse.

Risks to people’s safety were managed, however risk assessment processes did not always contain person-centred information.

People told us staff were well trained and competent to meet their needs. New staff received a comprehensive induction, and staff received appropriate support and encouragement from senior staff.

People’s health and wellbeing was monitored and recorded effectively. Any changes to peoples’ health and wellbeing was recorded and any actions taken by health and social care professionals cascaded to staff where relevant.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. staff understood how to protect and promote people’s dignity and privacy, as well as support them to live independent lives.

Care plans contained good, person-centred information with lots of detail for staff on how people wanted their needs met. Care plans were reviewed regularly, and people or their relatives had access to their own care records through an app (an application downloaded by a user to a mobile device) where they could communicate any changing need and ensure this was acted upon immediately.

The service had policies and procedures in place for managing complaints. There were no formal complaints in 2018, however the service made the effort to record and thoroughly investigate verbal ‘minor’ complaints to ensure people’s concerns were resolved before they escalated into formal complaints or dissatisfaction.

There was a positive open culture at the service. Staff we spoke with were confident in the leadership of the service. The service gathered feedback from staff and people who used the service in order to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

There was a comprehensive system of quality assurance in place to monitor, analyse and improve the quality of the service delivered. There were regular audits and meetings held to discuss their outcomes.

Inspection areas



Updated 28 February 2019

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people�s needs, and staff were recruited safely.

Medicines were recorded, monitored and managed safely. There were safeguarding procedures in place and staff knew how to identify and report potential signs of abuse.

Risk was managed in a safe way however systems around risk assessment were not always clear.



Updated 28 February 2019

The service was effective.

The service worked under the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Consent was clearly recorded.

Staff received a comprehensive package of induction, training and ongoing support from senior staff.

People�s nutritional intake and general wellbeing were monitored and recorded appropriately by staff, and any information from healthcare professionals was sent immediately to staff.



Updated 28 February 2019

The service was caring.

People we spoke with agreed that staff were kind, caring and compassionate.

People told us that staff had encouraged them to remain as independent as they wanted. Staff also understood the importance of protecting people�s dignity and privacy.

The service protected and promoted people�s diverse needs and characteristics.



Updated 28 February 2019

The service was responsive.

Care plans contained good, person-centred information with clear guidance for staff. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure continuing efficacy.

People�s social isolation was considered and measures were put in place to reduce social isolation, where necessary.

There was a process in place for managing complaints. People told us they knew how to raise complaints.



Updated 28 February 2019

The service was well-led.

There was a range of checks, audits and meetings undertaken to ensure the quality of the service was constantly monitored and improved.

Staff spoke positively about the culture of the service. The service actively sought and acted upon feedback from staff and people who used the service.

The service understood its obligations to send notifications about events and incidents to The Care Quality Commission (CQC) which they are lawfully required to do.