Bluebird Care Docklands, Stratford and Wapping

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 fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and were confident their voice would be heard.

People and relatives told us they felt comfortable raising concerns or providing feedback and were confident these would be acted upon. One relative told us, “If I have any concerns, I can speak to the office and they sort things quickly.” Records showed feedback and complaints were reviewed, investigated and used to make improvements where needed. This demonstrated people’s views were valued and acted upon. Staff described senior leaders as approachable and supportive and confirmed they understood the provider’s whistleblowing policy, including how to raise concerns internally or externally, including with the CQC if needed.

The provider operated an open-door culture, where both staff and people using the service could access the management team during office hours. Staff told us they felt able to speak up without fear of negative consequences. The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Assessments were person-centred and supported the delivery of safe, responsive care.

The provider assessed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs before support commenced. Assessments were completed with people and, where appropriate, their relatives or representatives to ensure their preferences, routines and desired outcomes were understood. Information gathered through assessments was used to develop personalised care plans which reflected people’s individual needs and supported the delivery of safe, responsive care. If the provider was able to safely meet the person’s needs, a personalised care plan was co-produced, agreed and shared with relevant staff before support began. One relative told us, “Staff understand my family member’s routines and how they prefer to be supported”.

Care plans were detailed and included people’s personal care, health, communication, mobility, environmental and household support needs. People had access to their care plans, and assessments and care records were reviewed regularly, including when people’s needs changed. Staff understood the importance of seeking people’s consent and involving relatives where appropriate, helping to ensure care remained person-centred and delivered in line with people’s preferences.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care and support was delivered in line with legislation, current evidence-based guidance and recognised best practice standards.

Staff received training relevant to people’s assessed needs and were supported to keep their knowledge and skills up to date through refresher training and competency assessments. People told us staff were knowledgeable and confident in meeting their needs.

The provider followed current legislation, recognised best practice guidance and Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture principles to help ensure care and treatment remained effective and person-centred. The provider was aware of and implemented Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance. This supported staff to provide care that was tailored to people’s individual needs, promoted positive outcomes and reflected current best practice guidance.

The provider worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals and made referrals in line with good practice guidance where people’s needs changed. For example, concerns relating to unplanned weight loss, swallowing difficulties or skin integrity were escalated appropriately to GPs, speech and language therapists (SALT), dietitians or district nurses when needed. Staff and reviewed care regularly to ensure support remained effective and responsive to changing needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people and help ensure continuity of care. Systems were in place to share information effectively, so people did not have to repeatedly tell their story when moving between services or when their needs changed.

The provider maintained positive working relationships with local health and social care professionals, including GPs, social workers, community nurses and therapists, to help deliver coordinated and joined-up care. Registered Manager told us they communicated regularly with each other and operated an effective out-of-hours on-call system, which ensured advice and support was available to staff when needed. There were also clear communication systems between the management team and care staff, including handovers, call monitoring and escalation processes.

Staff told us that when a person’s needs changed, updated assessments, care plans and relevant information were shared promptly with the wider team so support remained safe and consistent. The provider also had clear procedures for making referrals, escalating concerns and signposting people to other services where additional support was needed. One professional told us, “Communication with the service is consistent, and they involve us appropriately, which helps ensure people receive joined-up care.”

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 future needs for care and support.

Relatives told us consistent staff knew people well and were able to identify changes in their health and wellbeing promptly. This enabled timely referrals to healthcare professionals where required and supported people to maintain good health and achieve positive outcomes.

Staff worked collaboratively with district nurses, occupational therapists and GPs where people’s needs changed. Healthcare professionals’ advice was incorporated into care plans and reviewed to ensure people received appropriate and coordinated support.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s outcomes were regularly assessed to support ongoing improvement. The management team completed regular reviews of care records, daily notes and care plans to ensure people were receiving support in line with their assessed needs and to identify any emerging health concerns. Staff understood who to contact if a person’s health changed, including external healthcare professionals where needed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff demonstrated an understanding of consent, choice and decision-making. We saw records where consent had been consistently documented, including signed consent forms, Mental Capacity Assessments, and copies of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) documentation where applicable. Staff had completed MCA training and the provider demonstrated awareness of the legal framework, including the Court of Protection, to help ensure people’s rights were protected.

The registered manager told us they worked with health and social care professionals where there were concerns about a person’s capacity or restrictions on their liberty, including referrals relating to community DoLS where appropriate.