Bluebird Care Docklands, Stratford and Wapping

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 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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with people to respond to changes in their needs.

Relatives told us they were actively involved in care planning and maintained regular communication with the provider. Staff knew people well, including their likes, dislikes, routines, and preferences, which supported the delivery of personalised care. One staff member told us, “I take time to understand each person’s needs, preferences, and routines, and involve them in decisions.”

When people’s needs changed, the management team promptly communicated to staff to ensure continuity of care and a consistently person-centred approach.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Professionals and relatives told us people benefitted from positive relationships with staff who knew them well and delivered consistent support. One professional explained they had previously experienced difficulties with other agencies but found this service was able to meet people’s needs effectively. Staff completed daily care notes, which supported effective communication between teams and helped ensure continuity of care. Team supervisors described the systems in place to monitor visits and maintain consistent staffing arrangements.

The provider had systems in place to ensure continuity of care. When people’s needs changed, care plans were reviewed and updated, information was shared appropriately with relevant professionals, and staff were informed of changes to support consistent and coordinated care delivery. For example, where one person experienced ongoing issues with their prescribed medicines, the provider worked with healthcare professionals to help resolve this. The provider also demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of the local community and offered flexible support options to help people remain independent and connected to their communities.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider followed the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) to make sure people received information in a way they could understand and access. At assessment, people’s hearing, sight, and communication needs were considered so information and support could be adapted to meet their needs. For example, care records, invoices, and other documents could be provided in large print, and visual aids such as whiteboards were available for people who required additional communication support.

People’s communication needs and preferences were clearly recorded within care plans to support personalised care. Care plans were available within people’s homes, allowing people and their relatives to access information about their care and support. Information was presented in a way that reflected people’s communication needs and preferences.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns, and be involved in decisions about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and updated them on changes made as a result.

Relatives told us they knew who to contact if they had concerns and felt confident raising issues with the service. The provider actively sought feedback from people and their relatives through telephone calls, visits, and satisfaction surveys to monitor the quality of the service. Feedback was regularly reviewed, with action plans developed where improvements were identified.

We reviewed complaints records which showed concerns had been investigated and responded to appropriately. People and relatives were provided with feedback on the outcome and any actions taken as a result. The provider had clear systems in place for managing complaints and concerns, and people told us they felt listened to and confident that any issues raised would be acted upon. Feedback from people and relatives about communication with the office and management team was consistently positive.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Relatives gave positive feedback about the support provided and described staff as compassionate and professional. One relative told us, “Staff are very professional and I have no concerns.” People were supported outside of their home when required, helping them meet their identified needs.

The provider also supported family carers by arranging live-in care when relatives needed a break or holiday, helping to sustain existing care arrangements. Staff had received training around equality, diversity, discrimination and inclusion, and the provider had clear policies in place to ensure people were treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and barriers to accessing care were recognised and addressed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response.

Relatives and professionals told us staff were skilled in supporting people with complex needs, vulnerabilities, and individual preferences. Staff had received training in human rights and supporting people with complex needs. One relative told us, “The carers are well trained and provide support with confidence.”

The provider was committed to ensuring people were not disadvantaged or discriminated against and had equal opportunities to access support. Staff also described a culture of openness and accountability, where they felt empowered to speak up if concerns arose. The provider also considered wider social factors such as isolation, loneliness, and financial barriers.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of our assessment, no people were receiving end of life care; however, the provider had appropriate policies, procedures, and training in place to support people should this be required. Staff had completed end of life care training and understood good practice in this area.

Systems were in place to support people to plan for future changes in their needs, including possible transitions to other care settings if required. The registered manager told us they were confident in having sensitive and difficult conversations with people and their relatives, including discussions around end of life wishes and future care preferences, to ensure people’s choices and dignity were respected.