Black Country Management Limited trading as Bluebird Care Walsall

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People and their relatives told us they were involved in the assessment and care planning process. A person told us, “The staff are very professional. I have a care plan which I helped create. It is reviewed regularly.” A relative told us, “We have an app which we can access at any time. We receive a rota each week and can track [person’s care] care at any time.” Staff told us they had access to an electronic system which gave them all the information they needed about peoples assessed needs and plans to provide their care. The registered manager told us they worked with people and their relatives to assess peoples needs and put the care plan in place. Records in the electronic system showed information about the person, their background and medical history, it identified needs and these were used to create care plans for staff to follow during calls.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The providers systems included evidence-based tools to assess peoples risks and needs and put plans in place to meet them. For example, needs relating to skin integrity. The registered manager told us the systems in place supported people to receive care to meet their needs. Staff told us they used the information in the system to provide people’s care. For example, with skin integrity needs, how to support people with transfers from the bed to a chair and how to meet people’s dietary needs. The records we saw supported what we were told.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The registered manager told us that staff accessed the electronic care system and were able to review previous notes to support continuity of care. They also had the ability to share updates using a broadcast system. The registered manager told us this helped them to offer as much continuity as possible. People and their relatives confirmed they had good continuity of care. Records we saw supported this. Partners told us there were no concerns with engaging with the provider.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People and their relatives told us staff supported them when needed to seek support from other professionals. A relative told us, “The staff will ring me if [person’s name] is unwell and contact the GP for advice.” Staff told us they had information and support from relevant health professionals when needed. For example, a staff member described advice about people’s dietary needs and how they needed to be supported to eat their food. Other staff talked about having advice from doctors and district nurses. The registered manager told us they worked closely with specialist teams locally including the tissue viability team, hospital discharge team and palliative care teams. Records we saw supported what we were told.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The registered manager told us people had a review of their care needs every 3 months and more often if needed. This included regular checks with people and their families to check on their wellbeing and discuss any concerns and allow them to respond and make things better. People and their relatives confirmed these reviews took place and they were in regular contact with the provider. A relative told us, “The staff are effective and provide excellent standard of care. We have regular meetings to review the care and add to [person’s name] personal needs.” Staff told us they were informed when things changed and this was immediate as the electronic system alerted them to changes in people’s needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People and their relatives told us staff sought consent to their care and support being delivered. A relative told us, “The staff always ask for consent before providing care.” Staff understood the need to seek consent and confirmed they had received training in the application of the mental capacity act. The registered manager told us everyone was asked for consent, and staff had been trained to seek this. They described people signing a consent form where possible and how they sought consent from anyone who had power of attorney in place. The registered manager also confirmed people had their capacity assessed where needed and best interest decisions documented. A recent audit of this had shown a high score for this area. Records we saw supported what we were told.