You are here

Archived: Bluebird Care (Stafford)

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 February 2012
Date of Publication: 20 February 2012
Inspection Report published 20 February 2012 PDF | 37.07 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 08/02/2012 and looked at records of people who use services.

Our judgement

People who use the service experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

User experience

Through a process called 'pathway tracking' we followed the care of 4 people who used the service. We looked at the care records and spoke with people using the service on the telephone, talked with staff and some relatives about the care provided. Pathway tracking helps us understand the outcomes and experiences of selected people as we look at documentation relating to that person and speak to the person receiving care. The information we gathered helped us to make a judgement about whether the service is meeting the essential standards of quality and safety.

People who used the service told us that they were treated well and addressed properly by the care staff. They told us that staff stayed for their stated visit time and they were usually contacted by the agency if the carer was going to be late or if there was a change to their usual carer. They told us they felt respected by staff and their dignity was protected and they gave them the support they needed.

When we spoke with people on the telephone they told us the agency provided consistent care and they received a rota offering them weekly information about who would be visiting and at what time. People said the rota had been very helpful and they were aware that the staff rang in to confirm their arrival and on leaving the visit.

Other evidence

We saw that individual care plans were person centred and that the assessment process had involved people that used the service and their representatives. We saw that a pre-assessment process had been undertaken before the service started. We saw that care plans and risk assessments were in place, had been reviewed and the person and their relatives had been involved and signed the documents. We saw that where care needs had changed, prompt action had been taken to ensure that the care package was updated to meet the needs of the person.

We looked at three medication administration records (MAR) and these confirmed that people were receiving their medication as prescribed. We saw that care staff had undergone training for the safe administration of medication and reviews of their competency were recorded as part of the supervision process. We noted that not all refused/missed medication had been recorded as the medication policy stated and this was to be addressed by the manager.

We spoke with staff, all of whom were very clear about raising concerns about risks to people. Staff knew about and understood the purpose of the organisation's whistle blowing policy. The organisation had a procedure in place for people to make complaints. We saw that all complaints were recorded and monitored so that improvements could be made to the service delivery and learning could take place. When compliments or complaints were received the senior staff spoke with the individual carer to give praise or to resolve the issues immediately.

We looked at computerised staff time sheets which confirmed that the staff attended people at the agreed time. We saw that the staff had to call a logging number on arrival and on departure of the visit, which was logged on the computer system in the office.