Bluebird care (Central Bedfordshire)

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 promoted a positive culture of safety. Staff worked in an open and honest way. Staff told us they when they raised safety concerns, they were listened to and concerns were investigated and reported.

The provider had systems in place which supported the review of incidents, complaints and risks, and action was taken to address themes and drive improvement.

Documents we saw did not always clearly evidence discussions which had taken place with staff following incidents. However, staff told us lessons learnt were discussed and shared at team meetings and supervisions providing an opportunity to reflect on practice and agree on changes to drive improvement to practice and outcomes for people. We discussed this further with the registered manager who told us they would review the current arrangements for sharing feedback and lessons learned with staff to help make the process more formal and consistent.

The provider worked with people, their families and healthcare professionals to maintain safe systems of care. Safety was monitored and managed through shared communication and joint working.

Referrals were made to relevant professionals such as occupational therapy and district nursing when needed. Care was planned with input from health professionals to ensure people’s needs were met.

Comments received from families included,” Recently staff phoned me and said we might need to get the GP as (family member) was not well. If it was severe, they will call other professionals for advice and support.”

Staff worked with people, families, GPs community nurses and the local authority to plan and review care in a timely manner, making changes in care plans where identified. Comments we received included “Someone comes out and goes through the care plan and reviews it every 6 months,” and “(Family Member) was involved in a review, they contacted me to say more care was needed.”

The provider had policies and procedures in place to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to recognise, and report concerns both internally and externally.

Safeguarding information was shared appropriately and in a timely manner with external agencies including the local authority, and CQC.

Staff received training in safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act and demonstrated an understanding of consent, choice and people’s rights.

People, families, staff and professionals were able to raise concerns easily and felt listened to. One person told us, “I have spoken to the manager when I have had concerns. My concerns were dealt with promptly.”

Staff provided care that met people’s needs in a safe and supportive way and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks were assessed and managed in line with people’s individual needs and choices. Staff understood how to support people safely and responded in a calm and reassuring way, building trusting relationships. For example, care visit times were changed to support people with preparing for visitors and attending health appointments without feeling rushed.

People and relatives were involved in reviewing care and told us staff supported them to remain as independent as possible. One person told us, “They know what I can do, they stand by and assist me if I need help.”

The provider conducted risk assessments of the environment to support safe care. Records reviewed contained information about equipment including hoists and hospital beds, which identified responsibility of required checks and maintenance.

Staff had received training to conduct their role safely, including training in the use of moving and handling equipment.

Care plans contained information and contact numbers for staff to follow in the event of an emergency. An electronic care planning system enabled staff to access updated information about people’s care and risks promptly.

The provider conducted audits and competency checks to monitor safety and took action to address any issues identified.

The provider had a recruitment process in place which helped prepare staff for their role. Staff received induction, training, supervision and ongoing support to help them carry out their roles safely and effectively.

Staff told us they felt supported by the provider and able to ask for additional training if required. All staff we spoke with told us they could not work unsupervised until all training had been completed and competency checks had been signed off.

People and relatives told us staff were reliable and understood how to support them safely. One person said, “If there are new staff, they come with an experienced staff member. They will come 2 or more times before they come on their own. Supervisors will come and check medication is done right and if they have the right uniform on.”

Staff supported people to maintain good personal hygiene. Staff received training in infection prevention and control and understood their responsibilities for cleanliness, hygiene and safe working practices.

Systems were in place enabling concerns to be escalated with relevant people and professionals where required. Records we reviewed evidenced timely support and referrals made to external health professionals including community nurses and doctors, to manage infection.

The provider made sure medicines were managed safely and met people’s needs preferences and choices. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about medicines and staff supported people to understand and take their medicines safely. Care plans were detailed and included information about the support people needed with medicines including risks, preferences and guidance for when required (PRN) medicines. The provider audited people’s medicines records to ensure people had received their prescribed medicines safely.

Staff received medicines training and competency checks to help ensure medicines were administered safely and as prescribed. It was not clear from the records reviewed whether all senior staff and area supervisors had received medicine competency checks. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would take immediate action to ensure records were clear and all area supervisors had up to date medicine competency assessments in place.