We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird Care (Shropshire) - Domiciliary Care on 6 July 2023. 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 (Shropshire) - Domiciliary Care, you can give feedback on this service.
Bluebird Care UK is a national franchise. A franchise is when a franchisee (the provider) has bought the right to sell a specific company's (the franchisor's) products in a particular area using the company's name. The franchise operates over two hundred locations across the United Kingdom.
A registered manager was in post and was present throughout this inspection. A registered manager is a person 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.
At the last inspection, published in September 2016, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained overall ‘good.’
People received support that was exceptionally kind, caring and empowering. People were supported to maintain lifestyles they chose and to identify and achieve their goals in life. People were encouraged to take part in community and charitable events to build social integration and minimise the risk of isolation and loneliness.
People's privacy and dignity was respected by those providing assistance. People were supported at times of upset and distress.
People continued to remain safe as staff knew how to recognise and respond to concerns of ill-treatment and abuse. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures when employing new staff members. When people needed it, they were safely supported with their medicines by trained and competent staff members.
The provider followed effective infection prevention and control guidance when supporting people in their own homes. The equipment that people used was maintained and kept in safe working order and the provider undertook safety checks with people at their home addresses.
The provider learnt from incidents and accidents and worked with people and families to minimise the risk of reoccurrence if things had gone wrong. The provider worked in an open and transparent way and shared lessons learnt with other organisations to minimise the risk of re-occurrence in other care settings.
People continued to receive care that was effective and personalised to their individual needs and preferences. People were supported by staff members who arrived when expected and who knew them well. They were assisted by a staff team who were well supported and had the skills and training to effectively assist people.
People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff members were aware of current guidance which informed their practice and people's rights were protected by the staff who supported them.
People, and those close to them, continued to be involved in developing their own care and support plans. When changes occurred in people's personal and medical circumstances, these plans were reviewed to reflect these changes. People and their relatives were encouraged to raise any concerns or complaints. The provider had systems in place to address any issues raised with them.
Bluebird Care (Shropshire) continued to be well-led by a management team that people and staff found approachable and supportive. People were involved in decisions about their care and support and their suggestions were valued by the provider. Staff members felt involved in developing the care and support they provided and felt their opinions and ideas were listened to by the provider and, if appropriate, implemented. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service they provided and where necessary made changes to drive improvements.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The service was last inspected on 4 February 2014 and was meeting all requirements of the law.
Bluebird Care UK is a national franchise. A franchise is when a franchisee (the provider) has bought the right to sell a specific company's (the franchisor's) products in a particular area using the company's name. The franchise operates over two hundred locations across the United Kingdom.
Bluebird Care (Shropshire) is registered to provide personal care to people of all ages living in their own homes. The provider had offices in Shrewsbury, Oswestry and Church Stretton to enable them to provide personal care for people in surrounding areas. The service provided personal care to 178 people at the time of our inspection. This included four children.
A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person 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 felt safe when staff supported them in their own homes. They were supported by staff who had received training in and understood how to protect them from any harm and abuse. Systems were in place for staff to follow which protected people and kept them safe. Staff knew how to and were confident in reporting any concerns they may have about a person's safety
People were supported by staff who were familiar to them. People knew in advance which staff member would attend their care calls which reassured them. Care calls were monitored by the office team to make sure staff turned up and stayed for the agreed amount of time. Checks were completed on potential new staff before they started work to make sure they were suitable to support people living in their own homes.
Staff had the skills and knowledge to understand and support people's individual needs. These skills were kept up to date through regular training and staff were also supported in their roles by managers and colleagues
Staff asked people's permission before they helped them with any care or support. People's right to make their own decisions about their own care and treatment was supported by staff. People were supported by staff who knew them well and were caring in their approach. Staff made sure people were involved in their own care and listened to what people and their relatives had to say.
People were treated with dignity and respect and they were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as they were able to. People were supported to identify how they wanted their care delivered. Staff provided care and support how people preferred it and in a way that was individual to them. Staff responded to any changes in people's needs and supported them and their relatives to access other services as required.
People and their relatives had opportunities to give their opinions on the service that was provided and about the staff that supported them. People and relatives knew how to complain and were confident that the registered manager would listen to their concerns. People and their relatives had regular contact with the agency's office staff and found them approachable, polite and helpful.
Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.
People considered that the staff met their current needs and were very caring. They said, "I have a good rapport with them". People considered staff were well trained to do their job. People said the service was responsive to their changing needs.
The recruitment, induction and training of staff was organised well. The provider ensured that new staff were properly supported to provide care to vulnerable people. Staff were enabled to acquire further skills and qualifications relevant to the role they were in.
People told us the provider regularly asked them if their service was satisfactory. People's opinions about the service were monitored through surveys and day to day contact. This meant the provider reviewed the quality of service provision and made changes to improve the service where necessary. People knew how to complain and considered the level of communication with the office staff was very good. Records kept at the office were well maintained. The provider had a plan in place to improve the quality monitoring of the service. This meant that the service was effective and well led.
Three people we spoke with said that they would prefer to be cared for by the same staff on a more consistent basis. These comments reflected the results of a survey the manager had used to collect the views of people using the service. The manager told us how he was addressing these issues.
People said that staff encouraged them to be independent. They also told us that they felt safe and that they would feel able to tell the care staff or contact the agency management if they were worried about anything.
People told us that they had been involved in discussions about the care and support they received. They told us that their views were listened to and respected.
Staff told us that they were very well supported by the management team. We found that staff training was comprehensive and up to date.
We found that the provider regularly reviewed its own services to ensure that it maintained or improved the quality of the care and support it delivered.