Bluebird Care (Hull and Beverley)

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 71 (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. Positive feedback from people and relatives confirmed staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their needs. Whilst people’s care documentation did not always fully reflect their full needs, people and those close to them were regularly involved in decisions about the care that was centred around their needs.

Staff told us systems were in place to monitor and respond to people’s changing needs and managers told us they advocated on behalf of people.

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. Feedback from people, relatives and staff confirmed there was continuity in people’s care as the service was flexible, and the provider worked closely with people and their family. One person told us, “I have a regular carer, she knows me so well.” A relative also told us, “We have a great bond with [staff], I couldn’t ask for better carers.”

The provider ensured appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information for people in formats that were accessible and tailored to their individual needs in line with the Accessible Information Standards (AIS). The AIS is a law to ensure people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read and understand. A range of communication tools were available to enable people to express their views, wishes and to make decisions.

People told us they were aware of how to provide feedback or raise concerns about their care if they needed too. One person told us, “The service gave me a booklet at the beginning of my care package, it has all the information I need. I’ve never had to make a complaint, but I would if I needed too.” Another person told us when they raised a complaint previously the service was responsive and took immediate action to resolve their issue.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us the service was reliable, and support was offered in a timely manner with very few late and missed calls. People told us the service was flexible, and staff stayed longer if required. Comments included, “It all works very well, I have regular carers, as a rule they are regular”, “Staff have always turned up, the office will call and let me know if staff are running a little late” and “Staff stay the right amount of time and have never missed a call.” Managers told us staff had appropriate access to support in case of emergencies and protocols were in place. Various examples were seen of the service providing tailored supported to people to improve their outcomes. Examples included supporting a person to attend an emergency medical appointment and accommodating an emergency placement, facilitating positive outcomes.

People's personal, cultural, social and religious needs were identified, understood and respected. We saw no evidence of any concerns around discrimination in the service.

People were not always 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. For example, people did not have end of life plans in place, and we did not see evidence of conversations or support being offered to manage life changes such as bereavement. Staff supporting people had not received end of life training. We saw no evidence to support people’s end of life care needs were re-assessed regularly. The manager was responsive to this feedback and was reviewing training needs and how best to capture information regarding people’s important life changes.