Archived: Bluebird Care Reading and Wokingham

Bluebird Care Reading and Wokingham is part of a large national franchise brand Bluebird Care. The service’s office is located on a business park in Reading and covers both the Reading and Wokingham areas. At the time of the inspection the service provided personal care to 29 people.

The service had a registered manager. 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 told us they were happy and extremely satisfied with the service they received. One person told us, “I would recommend them to anyone.” A relative told us, “They do a very good job.” Other comments we received included, “I’m really satisfied with them.” “They’re never in a rush.” “I get extra help if I need it.” and “Exceptionally good.”

People received safe care from staff who had been trained to protect people and identify signs of abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns and followed the provider’s policies in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing. Robust recruitment procedures helped to ensure only suitable staff were employed at the service.

Risks were assessed, managed and reviewed to help ensure people’s safety. Staff were deployed appropriately and capacity of staffing hours was closely monitored. People were assisted with their medicines safely and told us they received them on time. The use of technology had reduced the risk of medicine errors and allowed instant updates to be made if people’s medicines changed. People were visited by consistent staff members and found this reassuring. They received notification of who would be visiting them so they knew who to expect.

There was clear leadership provided to the staff team from the registered manager who was fully supported by the two directors. A positive, open culture had been developed which embraced the whole team. Staff spoke about the values of the service and how they focussed on putting people first and always trying to do the best for people. They told us they were provided with support and felt able to raise any concerns or issues with the management.

There was a strong focus on developing the service and continually looking for ways to improve. Feedback from people using the service and other stakeholders was carefully considered, analysed and used to drive improvements. Information gained from surveys was shared openly and honestly with people.

The provider valued their staff team and had endeavoured to take steps to retain and develop staff to their full potential. They believed this was the key to delivering high quality, consistent care. A number of measures had been employed to recognise the contribution staff made and this had been appreciated by staff who told us they felt valued and respected. One said, “This is a good company to work for.”

Staff were well trained, they underwent a structured and well developed induction programme before working with people and providing care. Staff were mentored and nurtured through this process to instil the values of the service and develop their skills.

Links with the community had been developed and there was a strong focus on working in co-operation with other organisations. They took opportunities from these relationships to look for ways to enhance and better the lives of people using the service and assist the local community.

The provider had invested in and developed the use of technology to provide safe and effective care for people. They understood how technology could afford accurate monitoring of the service and allow the service to respond promptly to changing needs. Through the use of technology issues were identified quickly and enabled prompt action to be taken.

People benefitted from being cared for by staff who were consistently described as, “caring”, “kind”, “lovely” and "patient”. We were told staff went over and above the call of duty and people said this made a difference to their lives. People also told us staff knew them very well and understood their needs. They all told us they were consulted about their care and staff always checked they were happy about things.

Everyone we spoke with told us staff ensured their dignity and privacy was promoted. Staff spoke about people with respect. Records also indicated people were referred to in a respectful and caring manner.

People’s right to make decisions was respected. Consent was gained before care was provided and if people refused care this was respected.

People's needs were assessed and their support needs were discussed and planned with them. Their individualised care plans were detailed and provided comprehensive guidance for care staff to deliver care in the manner people wished.

People had information on how to make a complaint if they had an issue with the service provided. The provider used complaints to recognise deficits and make improvements.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. People who use the service told us they felt safe. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and deal with cases of suspected and actual abuse.

People's care plans included full needs and risk assessments to ensure they were treated in a way that did not put them at risk of receiving inappropriate care.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. People told us they felt properly cared for and that they thought staff were properly trained and competent to carry out their duties. Each person had a fully completed and up to date care plan which was tailored to their specific needs.

Staff told us they always asked people's permission before offering them any kind of care or treatment. There were processes in place to ensure that decisions could be made in a person's best interest if they lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People's views were taken into account, for example through the use of regular satisfaction surveys, and staff also had the opportunity to give their feedback.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide an appropriate level of care to people. Care staff had either completed, or were in the process of completing, appropriate qualifications in health and social care.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. People we spoke with were positive about the service they received. One person said: 'the quality of care is generally excellent' and that the provider was: 'the best agency that I have encountered.' Another person said that they were: 'quite satisfied' and that the service was much better than the one they had received before from another provider.

Care staff had a good awareness of people's needs. They were able to consistently monitor people's health and wellbeing and where necessary make amendments to a person's care plan.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. Staff were usually punctual when they visited people and would take their time completing their work. The office always let people know if staff were running late. However, the director acknowledged that they had had recruitment difficulties owing to delays in Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for new staff, which may have had a knock-on effect regarding staff rostering.

Care plans were regularly updated to reflect changes in people's needs.

Is the service well led?

We found that the service was well led. The service had a registered manager. The provider regularly talked with all staff to seek their views, and to share any issues with them that might affect the service.

There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service on a regular basis, for example, a service user satisfaction survey. The provider also had systems in place such as audits and dashboards, to monitor and evaluate the quality of the service on a continuous basis.

We looked at 10 care plans and found they contained information on people's care needs and associated risks. People told us they had review meetings to discuss their care plans and any changes to their care requirements were recorded in the care plans.

We saw staff recruitment was undertaken appropriately. Information regarding staff recruitment required under Schedule Three of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 was included in staff files. Staff told us they were provided with training and experience before beginning work.

The service had effective management and monitoring systems. Spot checks were undertaken on staff to ensure they delivered care appropriately.

People who use the service, their relatives and staff were enabled to provide feedback about the service and this feedback was considered by the management.

Relatives said staff responded appropriately to people's needs and sought guidance or assistance from health professionals when necessary.

We saw care plans contained detailed and person centred information on people's care needs and preferences. They contained risk assessments related to the delivery of people's care and any relevant medical conditions.

Staff told us they referred to care plans when they started caring for someone to ensure they were able to gain consent from them and deliver the appropriate care. They said care plans informed them of people's care needs and the service communicated changes in people's needs via text messages and phone calls.

We saw most but not all information required to be available regarding recruitment was available. Care records were detailed and updated regularly. We saw records related to the management of regulated activities were stored appropriately and available to the staff who required them.