Archived: Bluebird Care (Rushmoor & Surrey Heath)

Updated 22 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 on 20 March 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to ensure that someone would be available. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a 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 reviewed the completed PIR and we checked information that we held about the agency and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with 13 people who received care and support from the agency by telephone and one relative. We also spoke with four care workers by telephone.

In addition to this, we contacted five health and social care professionals to obtain their views of the agency. Four of the professionals responded and we have included their views in this report.

Whilst at the agency office we spoke with the registered manager, the nominated individual and a member of the office team. We also reviewed a range of records. These included care records for six people and other records relating to the management of the domiciliary care agency. These included staff training, support and employment records, minutes of meetings with staff, policies and procedures, accident and incident reports and quality assurance audits and findings.

Updated 22 April 2017

The inspection was announced and took place on 20 March 2017.

Bluebird Care (Rushmoor & Surrey Heath) is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people in their own homes in the areas of Aldershot, Farnborough, Cove, Frimley, Camberley, Bagshot, Lightwater, Windlesham, Chobham and Bisley.

People who receive a service include those living with frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age, mobility needs and health conditions. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 75 people. Visits ranged from 15 minutes to over one hour. The frequency of visits ranged from one visit per week to four visits per day depending on people’s individual needs. In addition, the agency also provides sleep in and waking night staff and 24 hour care to people if required.

During our inspection the registered manager was present. 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.

Everyone that we spoke with said that they felt safe with the care workers who supported them. Care workers received training and were knowledgeable in recognising signs of potential abuse and the relevant reporting procedures. Recruitment checks were completed to ensure care workers were safe to support people.

People’s views on the timings of visits varied. Care workers said that they had sufficient time to care for people safely. However, care workers views on travel time varied. Systems were in the process of being reviewed in order to address these issues.

Safe medicines management systems were in place. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and action taken to reduce any harm to people. Care workers understood the procedures that should be followed in the event of an emergency or if a person was to have an accident or to fall.

People said that care workers had the appropriate skills to meet their needs and that they provided effective care. A programme of induction, training and supervision was in place that equipped care workers with the skills and knowledge needed to care for people. Care workers were knowledgeable about the people they supported.

People were happy with the support they received to eat and drink and to manage any health needs they had. A new care planning system was in the process of being put in place. This meant that care workers would have better information that they could refer to when caring for people in their own homes.

Care workers understood people’s rights to be involved in decisions about their care and were able to explain what consent to care meant in practice. People were supported to express their views and to be involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People said that they were treated with kindness and respect by the care workers who supported them. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. Care workers understood the importance of building trusting relationships with people.

There was a positive culture at the agency that was open, inclusive and empowering. People said that they were aware who to speak to in order to raise concerns. The agency had a complaints procedure in place to respond to people’s concerns and to drive improvement.

Care workers spoke highly of the registered manager and the company. During the inspection both the nominated individual and the registered manager demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities to ensure legislation was complied with. Quality assurance systems were in place that included obtaining the views of people. These were used to drive improvements.