You are here

Bluebird Care (Hull and Beverley) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile


Review carried out on 7 October 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird Care (Hull and Beverley) on 7 October 2021. 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 (Hull and Beverley), you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 7 December 2018

During a routine inspection

This service 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 who may be living with a dementia and younger disabled adults or adults with mental health problems.

Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Hull & Beverley) receives regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission 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.

This inspection of Bluebird Care (Hull & Beverley) took place on 7 and 10 December 2018 and was announced. At the last inspection in May 2017 the service was rated ‘Good’. We inspected today because the service moved its location premises just after our last visit and therefore Bluebird Care (Hull & Beverley) is considered a ‘new’ service.

The provider is required to have a registered manager in post and this was being fulfilled. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like 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 protected from the risk of harm because systems detected, monitored and reported potential or actual safeguarding concerns and staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse. Risks were managed and reduced to avoid people being harmed or injured. People’s homes were risk assessed for safety. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment practices were followed. The management of medication was safely carried out.

Staff were qualified and competent, received supervision and had their performance appraised. Communication was an area the provider worked at to be effective. People’s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to make decisions for themselves and with nutrition, hydration, health and wellbeing. They were asked for their consent before staff undertook care and support tasks. 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 received compassionate care from caring staff who knew about people’s needs and preferences. They received the information they needed at the right time and were involved in all aspects of their care. Their wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected.

People were supported in line with person-centred support plans, which reflected their needs well. They were regularly reviewed. People engaged in pastimes and activities of their choosing and were sometimes supported in these. People’s family connections and support networks were respected. An effective complaint procedure was used and complaints were investigated without bias. End of life support was provided as necessary.

The service was well-led and people had the benefit of this because the culture and the management style of the service were positive and forward-looking. There were systems in place for checking the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys, meetings and effective communication. Recording systems protected people’s privacy and confidentiality as records were well maintained and held securely in the premises.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.