Archived: Bluebird Care (Aylesbury)

Updated 28 February 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 27 January 2020 and ended on 16 February 2020. We visited the office location on 3 February 2020.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with four members of staff including the nominated individual, registered manager, training and recruitment manager and care supervisor. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We received feedback from four people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We also received comments from eight relatives. Two staff members wrote to us to provide their comments about working at the service and caring for people. The local authority provided written information to support the inspection.

We reviewed a range of records. This included eight people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at four staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We received further evidence from the registered manager. The nominated individual sent statutory notifications to us (which were required by various regulations).

Updated 28 February 2020

About the service

Bluebird Care (Aylesbury) provides personal care to people who live in their own homes in the community. The service offers personal and social care to people within Aylesbury, Wingrave, Stone, Western Turville, Wendover, Aston Clinton, Waddesdon and surrounding areas. At the time of the inspection, the service supported 45 people and 20 staff were employed.

Bluebird Care (Aylesbury) can support younger and older adults, people living with dementia, people living with learning disabilities and autism and people that may have sensory impairments, physical disabilities or a diagnosed mental health condition.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This means they receive help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from abuse, neglect and discrimination. Risk assessments were appropriately completed for both people's risks and any arising from their home environment. Incidents and accidents were correctly recorded, investigated and acted upon. There was a very robust medicines management system in place. There was an ongoing recruitment drive, but all shifts were filled with regular workers.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were knowledgeable, skilled and experienced. They received a good level of training, support and received regular checks of their competency. There was some training in relevant topics such as dementia. People were supported with enough food and drinks. The service was compliant with the principles of consent. The staff had completed excellent work on the mental capacity assessments and best interest decision making process. People's preferences, likes and dislikes were recorded and respected. Where there was involvement with community healthcare professionals, notes were kept which reflected their involvement.

People and relatives have recorded that staff were kind and caring. We received comments from numerous sources about how caring the service was. All the feedback was positive and demonstrated satisfaction with the support offered and received. People's dignity and privacy was respected. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Care plans were very person-centred. There was good evidence of people's life history and story. The service's staff acted to promote social inclusion and avoid isolation from the community. There was an appropriate complaints mechanism in place. Investigations were very thorough. The service checked for people's end of life preferences.

There had been a positive change to the workplace culture since the last inspection. Staff were satisfied and happy; survey results showed they were working hard to ensure people receive good support. There was good support from the provider. The registered manager and office-based staff were knowledgeable, experienced and took their responsibilities seriously. There was a satisfactory governance and audit system in place, and a continuous improvement plan was used to capture and mitigate risks and work through improvements. There was good evidence of partnership working. People, relatives, health or social care professionals and staff were involved and had a say in how the service was operated and led.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 28 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.