Bluebird Care (Gateshead)

Updated 7 March 2019

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.

This inspection took place between 15 and 20 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service short notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before the inspection we reviewed the information in the PIR as well as all the information we held about the service, this included notifications of significant changes or events.

Prior to the inspection we contacted external commissioners of the service from the local authority and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), as well as the local authority safeguarding team and the local Healthwatch. We used their feedback during the planning of this inspection.

During our inspection we visited four people who used the service. We also had telephone conversations with a further three people and four relatives. We spoke with a range of staff including the nominated individual, the manager and three care workers. We reviewed a range of records including four people’s care records, medicine records, five staff files, training records and other records relating to the quality and safety of the service.

Updated 7 March 2019

Bluebird Care Gateshead is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection it provided a service to approximately 41 people.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

We received consistently excellent feedback from people and relatives about the care provided and the caring approach of the staff team. People and relatives enthusiastically told us about the exceptional care the service provided and how staff had exceeded their expectations. People used words such as “my angels” to describe how they felt about the staff team. We heard about many situations where staff had gone the ‘extra mile’ to ensure people received the care wanted and needed.

People, relatives and staff felt the service was safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and the whistle blowing procedure. They also knew how to report concerns.

People received their care from a reliable and consistent staff team whom they knew well.

The provider had effective recruitment checks to ensure new staff were recruited safely and were suitable to work for the service.

Staff supported some people to receive their medicines safely. Accurate records were kept confirming which medicines staff had given to people.

Staff told us they received excellent support and the training they needed. Records confirmed one to one supervisions, appraisals and training were up to date.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. For instance, staff supported people to make daily living choices and decisions.

Staff supported people to ensure their nutritional needs were met. This included preparing meals people had chosen.

Records showed people had regular input from a range of health professionals in line with their needs. For example, GPs and community nurses.

People’s needs had been fully assessed to identify their care needs. This was used as the basis for developing detailed and personalised care plans. These were currently being reviewed with input from people and relatives.

There had been no formal complaints made about the service. People and relatives only gave us very positive feedback about the service. Although they did tell us they knew how to complain if they wanted.

The provider had a comprehensive approach to quality assurance. A range of checks and audits were completed to help ensure people received good care.

People and staff gave us good feedback about the management of the service. Staff told us they could approach management at any time if they needed support or guidance.

There were good opportunities for people and staff to give feedback about the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.