Bluebird Care (Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea)

Updated 19 April 2018

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 23, 25 and 29 January 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we needed to ensure somebody would be available to assist us with the inspection.

Inspection site visit activity started on 23 January and ended on 8 February 2018. We visited the office location on 23, 25 and 29 January 2018 to see the registered manager and office staff and to review care records and policies and procedures. On the 29 January 2018 we also shadowed two care assistants with visits to two people who used the service to observe the care and support they received. After the site visit was complete we contacted care assistants and health and social care professionals, who were not present at the site visit.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. It also included two experts by experience who were responsible for contacting people during the inspection to find out about their experiences of using the service. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information the CQC held about the service. This included notifications of significant incidents reported to the CQC and the previous inspection report. We also contacted a local authority commissioning team to support the planning of the inspection. In addition to this we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is 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.

We called 69 people who used the service and managed to speak with 25 of them. We also spoke with five relatives and 19 staff members. This included the registered manager, the managing director, the care manager, the private care manager, the trainer, two supervisors, two senior care assistants and 10 care assistants. We looked at 11 people’s care plans, seven staff recruitment files, staff training files, staff supervision records and audits and records related to the management of the service.

Following the inspection we spoke with four health and social care professionals who worked with people using the service for their views and feedback.

Updated 19 April 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 23, 25 and 29 January 2018 and was announced. At the last comprehensive inspection in November 2015 the service was rated as Good.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 85 people in the City of London and the London Borough of Westminster, of which 75 were privately funded. Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Westminster) receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The provider had involved the whole staff team in driving improvement and had invested in staff and systems which created an open and positive culture throughout the service. Staff were committed, praised the level of support they received and spoke positively about their opportunities to progress within the organisation.

People using the service and their relatives were confident they would be listened to and felt the management team were approachable and felt comfortable getting in touch.

Staff treated people in a way that respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. Two members of staff had been recognised for their outstanding work in supporting people living with dementia.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and compassionate, knew how to provide the care and support they required whilst also going the extra mile for them. Regular care assistants knew the people they supported and showed concern for people’s health and welfare.

The provider was passionate and worked with other agencies with the aim to create a dementia friendly community. People were supported to access events, follow their interests and maintain relationships with friends and family to increase their health and well-being.

People were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. An initial assessment was completed from which care plans and risk assessments were developed. Records were accessible to staff and relatives on digital devices so the latest information could be seen. Care was personalised to meet people’s individual needs and preferences and was reviewed if there were any significant changes.

Risks to people were identified during an initial assessment with detailed guidance and control measures in place to enable staff to support people safely.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service and staff had a good understanding of how to identify and report any concerns. Staff were confident that any concerns would be investigated and dealt with.

People who required support with their medicines received them safely and all staff had completed training in the safe administration of medicines, which included observations and competency assessments. Alerts were set up on the software used that informed the office if people’s medicines had not been given by a specific time.

People’s nutritional needs and preferences were recorded in their care plans and staff were aware of the level of support required. Care assistants told us they notified the office if they had any concerns about people’s health and we saw evidence of this in people’s care records. We also saw people were supported to maintain their health and well-being through access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs, occupational therapists and physiotherapists.

The provider had a robust staff recruitment process and staff underwent the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service. Continuity levels were assessed to ensure people had regular care workers and consistent levels of care.

Care assistants received a comprehensive induction training programme to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively and shadowed more experienced staff before they started to work independently. Staff received regular supervision and told us they felt supported with the supervision they received.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The provider was aware of what to do and who to contact if they had concerns that people lacked capacity to make certain decisions. We observed that care assistants respected people’s decisions and gained their consent before they carried out care tasks.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, understand the experiences of people who used the service and identify any concerns.