Bluebird Care (Essex West) Also known as K & T McCormack

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with people to respond to any changes in their needs.

People received care that reflected their individual preferences, routines and what mattered to them. Care records clearly demonstrated how support was tailored to each person, including daily routines, communication needs, emotional wellbeing and personal outcomes. These plans were not generic and included meaningful detail about people’s lives, relationships and preferences. This enabled staff to deliver care in a way that was personalised rather than task focused.

People and relatives confirmed care was delivered in line with these preferences. One person described staff as “friendly” and said they felt involved in how their care was provided. Relatives highlighted how staff adjusted support when needs changed, including after hospital discharges or when people became unwell. This showed the service was flexible and responsive to individual circumstances.

Staff demonstrated they understood people’s needs and preferences well. They described adapting support throughout visits, responding to how people were feeling and offering reassurance or alternative approaches where needed.

The registered manager ensured care provision was coordinated and people experienced continuity of care. Systems such as care planning, scheduling, team communication and management oversight supported the consistent delivery of care. Continuity was monitored through governance processes, including workforce allocation, rota management and capacity planning, helping leaders identify and respond to potential risks to service delivery.

People and relatives told us staff arrived as expected and provided consistent care. They said they were informed if visit times changed, which reduced uncertainty and helped maintain trust in the service.

The provider used performance monitoring, quality assurance processes and customer feedback to review continuity of care and support service improvements. Staff worked with external partners to ensure care remained coordinated during hospital discharges or changes in people's needs. Where delays occurred in accessing equipment or support from other services, the provider escalated concerns and adapted care where possible to minimise the impact on people. Overall, people experienced coordinated,consistent and responsive care.

People had access to information and were supported to understand their care.

The registered manager ensured people and those important to them received information in ways they could understand to support involvement in their care.

Care plans, communication tools and feedback from people and relatives, showed that information was shared in accessible and appropriate formats. Staff adapted communication methods to meet individual needs, including verbal prompts, simplified language and personalised approaches based on people’s preferences.

People and relatives said they were kept informed about care and any changes. For example, families described being contacted when issues arose or when decisions needed to be made, which helped them remain involved and reassured about the care being provided.
 

The registered manager ensured care provision was coordinated and people experienced continuity of care. Systems such as care planning, scheduling, team communication and management oversight supported the consistent delivery of care. Continuity was monitored through governance processes, including workforce allocation, rota management and capacity planning, helping leaders identify and respond to potential risks to service delivery.

People and relatives told us staff arrived as expected and provided consistent care. They said they were informed if visit times changed, which reduced uncertainty and helped maintain trust in the service.

The provider used performance monitoring, quality assurance processes and customer feedback to review continuity of care and support service improvements. Staff worked with external partners to ensure care remained coordinated during hospital discharges or changes in people's needs. Where delays occurred in accessing equipment or support from other services, the provider escalated concerns and adapted care where possible to minimise the impact on people. Overall, people experienced coordinated,consistent and responsive care.

The registered manager made sure people could access care based on their individual needs and circumstances.

Assessments considered people’s needs, preferences and risks to ensure care packages were appropriate before they commenced. The service demonstrated flexibility in accepting and delivering care to people with a range of needs, including complex conditions.

People were supported to access services and community opportunities where appropriate, which helped promote inclusion and reduce isolation. Care delivery considered individual circumstances, ensuring people received support that enabled them to live as independently as possible.

Staff considered people’s needs when planning care, including communication requirements and physical or cognitive abilities, which helped ensure access was equitable.
 

People experienced care that was inclusive, respectful and tailored to their individual circumstances. The provider actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care in response.

Assessments, care plans and reviews included consideration of people’s diverse needs, including communication requirements, cultural identity and sensory impairments.

Staff described how they made reasonable adjustments in practice, and we found evidence of this in care planning and delivery. For example, adaptations such as communication adjustments for people with hearing or visual impairments ensured they could fully engage in decisions about their care.

There was also evidence of wider actions to reduce social isolation and improve access to community opportunities, including supporting people to attend social events and maintain relationships. These interventions were linked to improved emotional wellbeing and reduced isolation, as described by people and relatives.

People with additional needs were not disadvantaged in accessing care or achieving positive outcomes. Instead, they experienced care that was inclusive, responsive and tailored to overcome barriers. This demonstrated that the registered manager and staff did more than treat people equally and actively worked to achieve fairness in outcomes. The systematic identification and removal of barriers showed a well-developed understanding of equity, resulting in consistently improved experiences for people.
 

Care records and feedback from the registered manager and staff showed the provider had strengthened arrangements to support people to plan for the future. Following governance reviews, they implemented a structured improvement programme which included customer risk stratification, a Future Planning Register, a dedicated assessment tool and staff development.

Staff received training in areas such as advance care planning, DNACPR, ReSPECT conversations and end of life care, supporting person-centred discussions about future wishes. Records demonstrated future planning discussions,mental capacity assessments, best interest decisions and end of life care planning were being incorporated into care records. These improvements showed the provider had begun implementing a more structured approach to future planning; however, the arrangements were still being embedded across the service. No one was receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment.