Archived: Faster than a Cat t/a Bluebird Care (Trafford)

Updated 9 April 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

One inspector and an expert by experience (EXE) carried out this inspection. An EXE is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. On this occasion the EXE’s area of expertise was in dementia.

Service and service type:

Faster than a Cat t/a Bluebird Care (Trafford) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults, younger disabled adults and children.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced.

Inspection site visit activity started on 6 February 2019 and ended on 11 February 2019. We visited the office location on 6 and 11 February 2019 to speak with the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. By prior arrangement and with their permission, we contacted people and relatives by telephone and visited people in their own home on 7 and 8 February 2019 respectively.

What we did:

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse and deaths; and we sought feedback from the local authority, clinical commissioning group (CCG) and other professionals who work with the service. They did not raise any concerns. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We spoke with six people using the service and two relatives to ask about their experiences of the care provided. We spoke with the registered manager, the owner of the service and several staff members including three care assistants, three care coaches, the recruitment manager, the training manager and the care coordination manager. We reviewed a range of records. These included four people’s care and medicine records, four staff recruitment and training records, complaints, policies and procedures and quality monitoring and audits.

Updated 9 April 2019

About the service:

Bluebird Care (Trafford) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults, younger disabled adults and children. At the time of this inspection, Bluebird Care (Trafford) that was supporting 62 people living in their own homes.

Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Trafford) receives regulated activity; 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.

Following our inspection visit we received information of concern from a whistle-blower. The Greater Manchester Police were investigating these concerns. At the time of publication this outcome was not yet known. However, the provider and registered manager were dealing with the concern in an appropriate and professional manner.

People’s experience of using this service:

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and at the time of our inspection visit there was no evidence or information that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

The registered manager had completed audits to help ensure the quality of service provided. However, for some areas, these had not identified missing documentation relating to people’s care. The risks to people were low so we have made a recommendation that the provider reviews their audit processes around record keeping.

Medicine administration was managed safely. Protocols or detailed instructions for the administration of ‘as required’ medicines had been improved.

There was sufficient and adequately trained staff to support people safely. Recruitment processes were very robust. This helped to ensure staff were appropriate to work with vulnerable people. The provider had suitable systems in place to protect people from abuse including accidents and incidents.

People were safe because there were effective risk assessments in place, and systems to keep them safe from abuse or avoidable harm.

People’s needs were thoroughly assessed before starting with the service. People and their relatives, where appropriate, had been involved in the care planning process. Staff were aware that they needed people’s consent to share information.

Staff were competent and had adequate professional support to enable them to support people safely and effectively. Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. They had regular supervisions and annual appraisals.

People were supported in a friendly and respectful way. People, relatives and staff got on well and staff were aware of people’s personalities and behaviours. People told us staff supported them in a patient and unhurried manner. People and relatives were complimentary about the staff and their caring attitude.

Care plans were detailed, person centred and reflected relevant information about people’s needs and protected characteristics. There was evidence that these were reviewed regularly or as people’s needs changed.

People knew how to make a complaint. There was an effective complaints process in place. Complaints were thoroughly investigated and action taken to address the complaint raised.

People and relatives told us they were very happy with the care provided. They said that there was good communication between themselves and the service.

Rating at last inspection:

At our last inspection in July 2016 we rated the service good in all areas and it was given a rating of good overall.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit in line with our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.