Blue Sapphire Care Limited

Blue Sapphire Care Limited is a domiciliary care service. It provides care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection, 35 people were being supported with personal care.

Not everyone using Blue Sapphire Care Limited 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.

People’s experience of using this service:

Everyone said the service was well run. However, the provider needed to improve their quality monitoring processes to ensure quality checks were carried out in a timely way. More formal support for staff also needed to be provided regularly, and information from surveys used effectively to improve the service. There was evidence of effective engagement with people, relatives, staff and other agencies involved in people’s care.

Everyone told us the service provided very good care and support to people and their relatives. We had positive feedback about the caring nature of the staff and the registered manager, their skills, and flexibility when required to meet people’s needs. The registered manager planned people’s care in a way that ensured this was provided in a person-centred and responsive way.

People were protected from harm by staff who were confident in recognising and reporting concerns. People were safe because potential risks to their health and wellbeing had been managed well. There were enough staff to support people safely. People were supported well to take their medicines. Lessons were learnt from incidents to prevent recurrence. Staff followed effective processes to prevent the spread of infections.

Staff had the right skills to meet people's needs effectively. Staff had the information they required to meet people’s assessed needs. People had been supported to have enough to eat and drink. People had access to healthcare services when required. This helped people to maintain their health and well-being.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were fully involved in making decisions about their care and support. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care plans. Staff supported people in a way that respected and promoted their privacy and dignity. They encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

People were happy with how staff supported them to meet their individual needs. They said this had been done in a compassionate way. Complaints were managed well and there was learning from these to reduce the risk of recurrence. The service did not always provide end of life care and people's care wishes were not included in their care plans. The registered manager said they would do more to include this information in everyone’s care plans.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was Good (published 24 September 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Blue Sapphire Care Limited is a community based service in Leighton Buzzard, providing care to people in their own homes. There were fifty-two people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe using the service because staff were trained in safeguarding and they knew how to keep people safe from avoidable harm. There was enough staff to safely meet people’s needs however, people’s care visits had been arranged in a way that did not allow staff any travel time from one person’s home to the next. People had individualised risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on keeping them safe and their medicines were managed appropriately, where required. The provider had policies and procedures in place for the safe recruitment of new staff although checks of reference from previous staffs’ employers needed to be more robust.

The service was effective because staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and were trained to meet these needs. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met and where required, people were supported with the preparation of food and drinks.

People were able to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care. Staff were caring, friendly and approachable. They were also respectful of people’s dignity and privacy.

The service was responsive to people’s needs which had been identified prior to them starting to use the service, and were reviewed regularly. People were supported in a personalised way and they all had individualised care plans in place.

The service was also well-led. There was a registered manager in post who was a director of the provider company. They supported staff to take part in the development of the service and carried out regular audits and surveys to monitor the quality of the service.

We saw from records that people were involved in planning their care and making decisions about their support. Records confirmed that people were offered support which encouraged independence and ensured their individual needs were met. People told us the staff were friendly and respectful in their approach. One relative said 'I would recommend them to anyone.'

We saw that staff had undergone effective recruitment checks which meant they were able to support people to be kept safe and free from harm. We also found that staff had received appropriate training to enable them to support people effectively.

We saw that the registered manager ensured regular monitoring of the service took place and acted upon feedback that was given to drive improvement.

People and staff said they felt able to approach the manager to discuss anything, and were confident that swift action would be taken to resolve any issues. We saw a robust complaints system was in place.