- Homecare service
Bluebird Care (Market Harborough and Oadby)
Assessment report published 30 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 23 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice. At the time of our assessment, no one using the service had a learning disability or was autistic. We considered how the provider’s systems and processed reflected the principles of Right support, right care, right culture, including promoting person-centred care, choice, independence, dignity and human rights.
Staff were aware of potential risks to people’s safety and understood how to report concerns. Risk assessments and management plans provided clear guidance for staff to follow, helping ensure risks were identified, managed appropriately, and people were supported safely.
Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to recognise and report concerns. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor, investigate and respond to safeguarding matters. When incidents or accidents occurred, appropriate action was taken to protect people and strengthen safety arrangements. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and risk management. One staff member told us, "We are encouraged to speak up if we have concerns. The management team take these seriously and work with people and their families to find safe solutions that respect people's choices while managing risks."
Where people were identified as being at risk of falls, appropriate equipment and risk reduction measures were in place to help maintain their safety and independence. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were in place for people who required them to support their safety in the event of an emergency.
Medicines were managed safely, and medication audits took place. PRN ‘as required’ protocols were in place; however, records did not consistently demonstrate the effectiveness of PRN medicines following administration. The provider acknowledged this during the inspection and took action to strengthen recording practices and staff guidance.
People’s needs were assessed before care commenced, and regular reviews were undertaken to ensure support remained responsive to changing needs. Mental Capacity Act assessments were completed where required and were decision specific. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of gaining consent and supporting people to make decisions about their care. Staff consistently told us they sought people’s consent before providing support, which was reflected in feedback received from people and their relatives.
Staff were recruited safely and received the training needed to carry out their roles effectively. Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the management team and felt able to seek advice and raise concerns when needed. One staff member told us, "I feel the office responds appropriately to concerns and always takes the necessary action."
People’s needs were assessed before care commenced, and regular reviews were carried out to ensure support remained appropriate to their changing needs. The service worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals to monitor and promote people’s wellbeing, making referrals to external services where necessary to support people’s safety and health outcomes. Staff described working closely with people, relatives and other professionals to ensure care remained responsive to changing needs.
People’s care was planned and delivered in a person-centred way, taking account of their preferences, choices and individual needs. Where possible, care was provided at times that suited people and by a consistent staff team. Feedback from people, relatives and staff reflected the provider’s approach to delivering safe, personalised care. One staff member described adapting support to meet individual needs and told us, "We worked to build trust gradually, agreeing smaller steps that the person was comfortable with before progressing to other aspects of care." This demonstrated a flexible and individualised approach to care, helping people remain involved in decisions about their support and promoting positive outcomes.
The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. Regular audits and reviews of care records were completed to identify any concerns, with prompt action taken to address shortfalls and drive continuous improvement.
Stakeholders spoke positively about their experiences of working with the provider. Feedback highlighted the provider's professional approach, knowledge of people’s needs and willingness to work collaboratively with others. One stakeholder told us, “Any time I have had anything to do with them [provider], they have been professional, knowledgeable and supportive.”
The provider had systems in place to recognise staff contributions through awards and other recognition initiatives. Staff spoke positively about these arrangements and the acknowledgement of their work.
People's experience of this service
Feedback from people, relatives and visitors was overwhelmingly positive about the quality of care provided. People consistently described staff as kind, caring and respectful. One person told us, “The kindness they [staff] show me I don’t have to ask for.” Another person told us, “Definitely kind and caring. I have always been an independent person, they [staff] let me do what I can”, whilst another told us, “The way they talk to me and handle me is special.” Relatives echoed these views describing staff as “Very caring and attentive” another relative told us, “Staff’s hearts are in the right place.” People and relatives also spoke positively about the relationships they had developed with staff. One relative said, “They [staff] know [name]’s sense of humour.”
People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them.
One person told us, “Very much so safe. I trust them [staff], they are always making sure I am ok.” Relatives described staff as “A good extra pair of eyes” and praised their ability to identify and escalate concerns. Another relative told us staff would identify changes in health and wellbeing, “Keeping an eye out for things.” Feedback demonstrated confidence in staff’s ability to support them safely. One person said, “They [staff] are trained to support me from falling. They are very much aware.”
People and relatives told us they were involved in planning and reviewing care and they felt their views were listened to. Care plans were described as personalised and reviewed regularly. Relatives spoke positively about the electronic care records system. One ne relative saying, “The app is a good way to see what has gone on,” and another commented that records provided, “Good insight into how [name] is.”
Feedback indicated the service was responsive to people’s changing needs and concerns. One person told us, “Once I complained and it was dealt with immediately.” Relatives gave examples of concerns being acted upon quickly, including changes to staff arrangements and missed tasks. One relative told us, “[Name] had concerns, didn’t gel with [Name]. I called them and [Bluebird Care] immediately sorted it.” People also described the service as flexible. Another person told us, “Once I had to call to change the call, they [staff] managed to swap things around for me,” whilst relatives explained that visit themes and care packages could be adjusted when circumstances changed.
People and relatives spoke highly of the management team and office staff. Feedback described the service as well organised, approachable and supportive. One person told us, “It’s well managed. I’m impressed by the fact the carers have the back up of the staff in this office.” This was also echoed by carers who we spoke with. Relatives described the registered manager as, “Lovely”, “Very helpful, empathetic, understanding and reassuring.” Feedback indicated people felt comfortable contacting the service and were confident they would receive a prompt response.
Most feedback about the service was positive. A small number of relatives noted some variations between carers, with one relative commented, “Everyone is different. Some do more. Some people reported occasional late calls, however feedback indicated staff generally communicated delays and ensured support was still provided”.