Bluebird Care (Merton)

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges

and the needs of people and their communities.

The care manager told us the service aims to provide “the best quality care”. They explained that respect and offering people choice is essential and expected from all staff. Staff were encouraged to reflect on their practice and identify any additional training they felt they needed to continue delivering high-quality care. The manager added that the team often goes “above and beyond” what is required to meet people’s needs. Staff described a shared commitment to meeting people’s needs, telling us, “We aim to meet customers’ needs at all times, and it’s a priority for us.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

There was a clear and effective management structure in place, and people and their relatives told us that managers were available and approachable whenever they needed to discuss any matters. One family member said, “Area managers call sometimes for a review, and this is always a good time to chat things through.” A healthcare professional shared similar views, saying, “The management team at Bluebird Care is excellent. They are approachable, responsive, and willing to engage in constructive discussion. Their supportive and open manner contributes to effective communication and helps ensure that my client’s care is well coordinated.”

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

There was an open and transparent culture, where staff felt able to raise concerns. Whistleblowing issues were addressed internally, and different levels of management became involved where staff felt their concerns had not been handled appropriately. These systems contributed to a well-led service by promoting accountability, learning, and continuous improvement.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

There was an inclusive and supportive team culture within the service. Staff worked closely together, and turnover was low, with some team members having worked in the service for more than 10 years. Some members of the office team had originally started as carers and were supported to develop their skills and progress into more senior roles. This demonstrated a commitment to staff development and leadership growth within the service, contributing to a well-led and sustainable team structure.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

There were effective governance arrangements in place to monitor quality and drive improvement. Audits were delegated to staff according to their roles, ensuring clear accountability. The service used electronic systems through which office staff received email notifications detailing the audits and actions they were required to complete. These were time-bound, and if tasks were not completed within the required time frame, the care manager was notified so that timely oversight could be maintained. Care plan audits completed included checks to ensure that tasks and daily records accurately reflected the guidance and outcomes set out in people’s care plans. This supported consistent, safe and person-centred care.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Yearly satisfaction surveys were completed to gather feedback from people and their relatives about the quality of care provided. The most recent results we viewed showed feedback was mainly positive. Where areas for improvement were identified, such as enhancing communication, the service took appropriate action to address these. The service’s learning culture was also noted by a healthcare professional, who said, “The service responds well to feedback and uses it constructively to improve the quality of care. The feedback I have provided in the past has been received positively, and I have seen a willingness from the team to reflect, adapt, and make improvements where needed.” This demonstrated a commitment to listening and improving the quality of care.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Systems and processes were in place to identify trends in incidents and determine whether any areas required action or improvement. Weekly risk assessment meetings were held by office staff, focusing on reviewing weekly actions, staff support needs, and progress with audits.

The service was in the process of transitioning between 2 electronic systems. Staff told us the new system was more user-friendly and easier to navigate. Incidents could now be completed directly by staff, rather than only by office staff, which had improved responsiveness and accountability.