We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird Care (Merton) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bluebird Care (Merton), you can give feedback on this service.
Bluebird Care (Merton) is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 70 people aged 50 and over were using the service. Some of these people were living with dementia, had mental health care needs or autism.
Seven people who used the service did not receive any personal care from this domiciliary care agency. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service
People told us they remained happy with the home care service they received from Bluebird Care (Merton). A quote we received from a relative summed up how most people felt about the service – “Staff really do understand dementia…Since we’ve been with Bluebird, my [family member] is a different person; they really have made things better for her.”
Since our last inspection, the provider has improved the way they monitor the quality and safety of the service people receive by ensuring their governance systems were operated effectively. For example, the provider had increased the number of office-based managers and staff and their quality monitoring roles and responsibilities. The managers now recognised the importance of analysing and learning lessons when things went wrong to continuously improve the quality and safety of the home care service they provided.
People, their relatives and staff all spoke positively about the way the office-based managers ran the agency. The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people using the service, their relatives and staff. The provider worked in close partnership with other health and social care professionals and agencies to plan and deliver people’s packages of care and support.
People were supported by staff who knew how to prevent and manage risks they might face and keep them safe from avoidable harm. Staff continued to undergo all the relevant pre-employment checks to ensure their suitability and fitness for the role. People received continuity of personal care and support from staff who usually arrived on time for their scheduled visits and were familiar with their needs and wishes. People received their medicines as they were prescribed. The service’s arrangements for controlling infection remained effective.
People continued to receive personal care from staff who had completed training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where staff were responsible for this, people were supported to maintain a nutritionally well-balanced diet. People continued to be supported to stay healthy and well.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were treated equally and had their human rights and diversity respected, including their spiritual and cultural needs and wishes. People were encouraged and supported to develop their independent living skills. Assessments of people’s support needs were carried out before they started using the service.
Care plans remained personalised, which ensured people received personal care that was tailored to meet their individual needs and wishes. People were encouraged to make decisions about the care and support they received and had their choices respected. Managers and staff understood the Accessible Information Standard and ensured people were given information in a way they could understand. People were satisfied with the way the provider dealt with their concerns and complaints. When people were nearing the end of their life, they had received compassionate and supportive care from this agency.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at the last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 September 2018).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bluebird Care (Merton) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
At our last inspection of 17 December 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’ across all domains.
Bluebird Care Merton is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults.
Not everyone using Bluebird Care Merton 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. At the time of our inspection 57 people were receiving care.
At the time of our inspection the director was awaiting interview for their CQC registration as a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
At this inspection we found that the provider was in breach of the regulations relating to good governance. You can see the action we have told the provider to take about these breaches at the back of the full version of this report.
We found that developments were needed to ensure quality assurance systems were appropriately managed and improvements to the service made in a timely manner. Audits conducted of incidents and complaints were not effective in identifying patterns and trends. Care plans for people using the service were not always regularly reviewed. Feedback from people and relative satisfaction surveys was not analysed to support improvements across the service. People were not always supported to express their wishes in relation to end of life care preferences.
People and their relatives were not always satisfied with staff attending their calls on time, and expressed concerns with how office staff communicated with them. The director had highlighted this as an area for development and had focused on office team development through team meetings and supervisions.
People were supported by staff that knew how to safeguard them, and appropriate checks had been carried out to ensure staff were safe to work with people. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to infection prevention and control. Incidents and accidents were appropriately investigated as and when they occurred. People’s risk assessments and administration of medicines were comprehensively assessed and managed to ensure that people received the support they required.
Staff received regular supervision and appraisal to support them in their roles. People were supported to eat balanced meals of their choice. Where people needed to access healthcare professionals the service supported them to do so. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff sought people’s consent when delivering care. People’s needs were assessed in line with best practice guidance.
People felt that staff were caring and attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, and staff were considerate of people’s needs when supporting with personal care. People’s care plans, and staff support reflected that people were supported to be as independent in tasks as possible.
People’s care plans were comprehensive in detailing people’s preferences in how they wanted their care needs to be met. Complaints were appropriately investigated and responded to in a timely manner.
Staff recognised that the director had made improvements to communications between staff in the field and in the office. A new quality and training manager had been recruited to focus on improvements in these areas. The director was aware of their responsibilities to the CQC and worked to develop positive relationships with partnership agencies. The director had a vision to expand the business and was focused in improving the current customer service provision.
This This was an announced inspection and took place on 17 December 2015. At our previous visit in January 2015 we judged the service was meeting all the regulations we looked at.
Bluebird Care Merton provides domiciliary care and support to 78 people living in their own homes in the Merton area with a range of needs including older people, dementia, physical and mental health needs.
The service had a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. A ‘registered manager’ is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 told us they were happy with the care they received. This was also the view of relatives we spoke with about the care and support provided for people in their homes. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to inform people who used the service, their relatives and staff how to report potential or suspected abuse.
People had risk assessments and risk management plans to reduce the likelihood of harm. Staff knew how to use the information to keep people safe.
The registered manager ensured there were safe recruitment procedures to help protect people from the risks of being cared for by staff assessed to be unfit or unsuitable.
People told us staff had the knowledge and skills to carry out their work effectively. Staff received training in areas of their work identified as essential by the registered manager. We saw documented evidence of this.
Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to administering and the recording of medicines which helped to ensure they were given to people safely.
Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They supported people to make choices and decisions about their care.
People had a varied nutritious diet. They were supported to have a balanced diet, food they enjoyed and were enabled to eat and drink well and stay healthy.
People said they thought the staff were caring and compassionate towards them. They told us they were involved in planning their care and their views were sought when decisions needed to be made about how they were cared for. The service involved them in discussions about any changes that needed to be made to keep them safe and promote their wellbeing.
We were told by people that staff always wore their uniforms and identity badges. They said that staff respected their privacy and treated them with respect and dignity.
People said they felt the service responded to their needs and individual preferences. Staff supported people according to their personalised care plans, including supporting them to access community-based activities.
People knew how to raise any concerns or complaints they might have and they said they felt comfortable in doing so. People were aware of the complaints policy.
People gave positive feedback about the management of the service. The registered manager and the staff were approachable and fully engaged with providing good quality care for people who used the service. The registered manager had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service and action plans were developed where required to address areas that needed improvements.
This was an announced inspection and took place on 16 January 2015. At our previous visit on 18 June 2013, we judged that the service was meeting all the regulations that we looked at.
Bluebird Care Merton is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support for 60 adults living at home in the Merton area. Fifty seven people who receive a service from Bluebird Care Merton are privately funded and three are funded by the Merton Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). After the inspection visit we spoke on the telephone with ten privately funded people who used the service. We also spoke with two commissioners from the Merton CCG who commissioned and monitored the care provided to people who used the service.
The service had a registered manager in post. A ‘registered manager’ is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 told us they felt safe with the service they received at home. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to inform people who used the service, their relatives and staff about how to report suspected abuse.
People had risk assessments and risk management plans to reduce the likelihood of risk. Staff knew how to use the information to keep people safe.
The registered manager ensured there were safe recruitment procedures to help protect people from the risks of being cared for by staff assessed to be unfit or unsuitable.
Staff received training in areas of their work identified as essential by the provider. We saw documented evidence of this.
Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to administering and the recording of medicines which helped to ensure they were given to people safely.
People were involved in planning their care and their views were sought when decisions needed to be made about how they were cared for. The service involved them in discussions about any changes that needed to be made to keep them safe and promote their wellbeing.
Staff respected people’s privacy and treated them with respect and dignity.
People indicated that they felt that the service responded to their needs and individual preferences. Staff supported people according to their personalised care plans, including supporting them to access community-based activities.
The provider encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and responded to them in a timely manner. People were aware of the complaints policy.
People gave positive feedback about the management of the service. The registered manager and the staff were approachable and fully engaged with providing good quality care for people who used the service. The provider had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service and people were asked for their opinions via surveys. Action plans were developed where required to address areas for improvements.
People told us that they had been provided with enough information about the services offered by Bluebird Care Merton to make a decision as to whether they wanted to use them or not. They also told us that they had been assessed before a service was provided and that they had a care plan that set out the care and support they had received. People said that they felt safe with their care workers and that they always wore their uniforms and identity badges.
People said that their care workers were reliable, kind and courteous, always respectful and generally on time. One person said, “I am very happy with Bluebird Care Merton they are very reliable, clean and tidy and they always ask if anything else needs doing, it’s an excellent service”. A relative of one of the service users fedback to Bluebird Care, “You have been efficient, flexible and honest, my mother is very happy with the service”.
People told us that the office always let them know if their care worker was going to be late. All the people we spoke to were happy with the services they received. They all knew how to make a complaint but the people we spoke to said they had never needed to do so.
People said that their care workers were reliable, kind and courteous, always respectful and generally on time. They said that the office always let them know if their care worker was to be late. All the people we spoke to were happy with the services they received. They all knew how to make a complaint but the people we spoke to said they had never needed to do so.