Archived: Bluebird Care (Brent)

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Care and treatment was planned in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Risk assessments had been carried out for each person and plans were put in place to minimise risks.

However, care was not always delivered in a way which ensured people's safety. For example, people using the service and their relatives told us when two care staff were required to deliver care they did not always arrive at the same time. Care could not then be delivered in line with the care plan. People also told us there were occasions when care workers did not arrive at all.

Is the service effective?

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The provider acted in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard. Staff were appropriately supervised. The provider encouraged staff to pursue additional qualifications and worked to ensure that their care skills were up to date through access to a range of suitable training courses.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with five people who were using the service and nine relatives of people using the service. They were mostly satisfied with the care being provided. One person using the service said, "They are super. We get on very well." Another person told us, "They look after me very well." One relative said, "They listen to you. If you are not happy with a carer, then you can ask for a different one and they try to sort it out straight away."

However, some people were not happy with the provision of care. One of the relatives we spoke with told us, "The staff are very caring, but sometimes they don't come when they should. My [relative] needs two carers to provide care safely. They don't turn up at the same time and I have been asked to fill in instead."

Is the service responsive?

The provider worked alongside other health and social care professionals, such as district nurses or occupational therapists, in order to protect the health, welfare and safety of people who used the service. They sought additional advice from other health and care professionals in order to improve the quality of the care being provided.

We examined how the service responded to complaints. The service responded to concerns promptly and carried out investigations of any complaints.

Is the service well led?

The provider had systems to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This included obtaining feedback from people using the service, their relatives, and members of staff. The service used this information to improve the quality of the service.

The provider had a system in place for recording incidents. However, no incidents had been recorded since the last inspection. We found evidence of some incidents which had resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to the people using the service. These might have required an investigation, but none had occurred. This meant that the provider did not protect people against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care by means of making changes to the care as a result of an analysis of these incidents.

People we spoke with informed us that care staff treated them with respect and dignity and they were generally satisfied with the services provided.

We spoke with four care staff and they were aware of the importance of treating people with respect and dignity. They were able to give us examples of how they ensured that they treated people with respect.

The care of people was assessed and care plans prepared appropriately. We saw that these were signed by people receiving the care or their representatives. We noted that the provider was in the process of changing the format of their care plans.

We saw that the provider had carried out appropriate checks with regards to the staff they employed. The staff files contained the required documentation.

We observed that the provider had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service people received. Questionnaires, client reviews and spot checks had been carried out.

We noted that records we looked at were up to date and were stored safely and could be located when required.

The agency had an appropriate safeguarding policy and procedure. Three staff we spoke with could provide us with examples of what constituted abuse and were aware of the procedure to follow when responding to allegations or incidents of abuse.

Relatives indicated that carers were reliable and competent. The training records indicated that they had been provided with essential training. Staff informed us that they had received supervision and felt supported by their managers.

Arrangements for quality assurance were in place. Monitoring visits and spot checks had been carried out by the agency. Relatives said they had been consulted regarding the services provided and communication with the agency was good.