Archived: Bluebird Care Haringey

Updated 12 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 15 and 24 February 2017. This was an announced inspection. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection as this is a domiciliary care agency and we wanted to ensure the manager was available in the office to meet with us.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and two experts by experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. They phoned people using the service and their relatives to ask them their views on service quality.

Prior to our inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service, including previous reports and notifications sent to us at the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We contacted local authority and healthcare professionals about their views of the quality of care delivered by the service. During inspection we looked at the information sent to us by the provider in the Provider Information Return, a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

There were 34 people receiving personal care support from the service, and 20 staff, at the time of our inspection. During our visit to the office we spoke with the registered manager, field supervisor and looked at five people’s care plans and care delivery records, five staff personnel files including recruitment, training and supervision records, and staff rosters. We also reviewed the service’s accidents / incidents and complaints records, missed and late visits logs and feedback surveys.

Following our inspection visit, we spoke with eight people, seven relatives, a care coordinator and five care staff. We reviewed the documents that were provided by the registered manager (on our request) after the inspection. These included reviewed audit reports and policies and procedures. In total, we gained the views of eight people, seven relatives, seven staff and two community professionals.

Updated 12 April 2017

The inspection took place on 15 and 24 February 2017. This was an announced inspection. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection as this is a domiciliary care agency and we wanted to ensure the manager was available in the office to meet with us. This service was last inspected on 22 October and 02 November 2015. At this inspection, we found the provider to be compliant.

Bluebird Care Haringey is a domiciliary care service run by A & J Kohli Limited. At the time of inspection the service was providing personal care to over 34 people with dementia and older people in their own homes.

The service had a registered manager who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered 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 using the service and their relatives were happy with the service and found staff caring, kind and helpful. Community professionals spoke highly of the service’s effectiveness and responsiveness. The service delivered person-centred care that met people’s individual health and care needs.

The service followed appropriate procedures to safeguard people from harm. Staff had the understanding of protecting people against abuse and their role in promptly reporting poor care and abuse. Risk assessments were individualised and provided sufficient information and instructions to staff on the safe management of identified risks. People were happy with medicines support.

Staff were well-trained and demonstrated good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences. They received regular supervision and support from the management. The service followed safe recruitment practices, carrying out appropriate recruitment checks before staff worked with people.

Staff asked people’s permission before providing care, gave them choices and provided appropriate support to people that lacked capacity to make decisions.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. People were generally happy with staff punctuality. The service identified and addressed risks against occasional missed visits. There were detailed daily care delivery records giving a clear account of how people were supported.

Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed; they recorded people’s individual needs, likes and dislikes. They included instructions for staff on how to support people to meet their needs and preferences. People were supported with social aspects of their life and with various activities.

The service had good systems and processes to evaluate the quality and safety of the care delivery. The management team regularly visited people’s homes to observe staff supporting people with their care needs, and addressed any concerns immediately. The service asked people and their relatives if they found care delivery effective via feedback survey forms and telephone calls. Any areas identified as needing improvement were addressed immediately. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the management and found them approachable and helpful.

The service worked with health and care professionals in improving emotional and physical wellbeing of people and their relatives. The service worked collaboratively with local charity organisations for various social causes for example to promote dementia friendly settings.