Bluebird Care (Merton)

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 they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service responded effectively to people’s changing needs and preferences, ensuring care remained personalised and relevant. Staff told us they reported any changes promptly so that care records could be updated without delay. One staff member said, “Everything is in [care plans] and if we see anything is missing or changed, we notify the office. The care plans are very good.” A healthcare professional also commented positively on the service’s responsiveness, stating, “[Staff] follow the care plan well, adapt their approach to my client’s preferences, and provide support in a way that promotes dignity, comfort, and independence. Their person-centred practice contributes positively to my client’s overall wellbeing and weekly experience.” This demonstrated that the service adapted care appropriately in response to people’s evolving needs and ensured support remained aligned with their individual wishes and circumstances.

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.

The service ensured there was a joined-up approach and continuity of care when working alongside relatives and other professionals. People experienced consistency, with the same staff members regularly attending their visits. People were also offered a choice about whether they preferred male or female staff, supporting their comfort and personal preferences.

Relatives were involved in people’s care where appropriate and, with the person’s consent, were given access to daily care notes. This supported transparency and helped ensure everyone involved in the person’s care had up-to-date information.

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

The service also took steps to meet people’s individual communication needs. For example, a staff member who spoke the same language was arranged to support a person who preferred this. Communication support for people living with dementia was considered on an individual basis and provided as required. One person, for instance, preferred information to be communicated in writing.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People felt listened to by the staff who supported them. Their comments included, “I think staff do listen. They need to be efficient and are always aware of the next visit, but I feel that I am more than a name on a list.” and “[Staff] listen, chat, and work well together.”

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and told us they felt confident their concerns would be addressed and resolved if they needed to raise an issue. The service maintained a concerns and complaints matrix, which recorded both complaints and compliments. When a complaint was received, the service followed its complaints procedure. This included investigating the issue and ensuring outcomes were resolved to the satisfaction of the person who raised the concern.

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

Staff had access to ongoing support, including outside of normal office hours. An on-call system was in place, covered by dedicated remote on-call staff, including at weekends. The service operated an open-door policy, and both people and staff were able to contact the office whenever they needed advice or support.

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

The provider supported people to access their local community as and when needed. This included helping people attend healthcare appointments, take part in local activities, and engage in community events. Staff also supported people to pursue their hobbies and preferred activities, enabling them to maintain social interactions and remain valued members of their community.

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

People receiving end of life care were supported by trained staff, and healthcare professionals were involved when needed. Relatives were also supported throughout the process. Care plans contained essential information, including Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and details of people’s preferred funeral arrangements, where individuals had chosen to discuss these. The service also helped arrange funeral planning when this was requested by the person.