Archived: Bluebird Care (Aylesbury)

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.

There was a registered manager at the service who had been in post since 20/12/2011.

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.

One person told us, “Yes friendly and efficient, they help me with house work, have a cup of tea and a chat. It’s nearly always the same staff”. Comments we read included, ‘Very happy with the girls who visit’. ‘Most happy and grateful for the happy and cheerful service’.

Comments from staff about the management were, “Absolutely brilliant, well led and organised”.

Staff received training in safeguarding. They told us they would not hesitate to report any concerns. One member of staff told us, “The company are good, they always put clients first”. We saw evidence staff had raised concerns about a person’s well-being. It had been appropriately followed up and investigated in line with the company’s policy and procedure.

Safe recruitment procedures were carried out. Files contained relevant documentation required to ensure only suitable staff were appointed. Staff received appropriated induction, training and supervision. Staff received a training programme that spanned the first 12 weeks of working for the company.

Staff support was on-going and an essential part of continuing development. Policies and procedures for the safe management of medicines were in place and being followed. Medicine charts we saw had been completed appropriately. People were given support if required to manage and administer their own medication. However, where people required staff to administer their medication a risk assessment was in place to ensure the request was appropriate and staff were competent to carry out this role.

People said they knew how to make a complaint and were given the information to do so when they first joined the service. One relative told us, “If I had any concerns I just ring the office they are approachable and listen and usually sort things out quickly”.

People had access to healthcare services to maintain good health. One member of staff told us, “If we need support it’s always there. We can go straight to them (office) if we need advice”. The registered manager told us they work alongside nursing staff when required.

The service had effective quality monitoring systems in place to drive improvements and ensure the safety of people who use the service. Quality assurance checks were carried out by the Care Supervisor or Care Manager in people’s homes.

During this follow up inspection we spoke with the manager, and read documents relating to staff members and people who used the service. We saw that the manager had put in place closer monitoring of staff and had increased the frequency of medication training for all staff. An audit tool was being used to monitor staff performance, and appropriate action had been taken to resolve any medication issues.

The staff and four people who used the service told us they believed Bluebird Care provided a good service. One person told us the care they received was 'Tailored to what I require.' Another person told us the staff were 'Very helpful.' We were told by the people who used the service the staff were helpful, polite and friendly.

We read the care plans, and saw they included risk assessments, care plans and daily records which were completed by the care staff. We read how each person had consented to the care before it was provided.

We saw in the care plans copies of medication administration charts. We noted there were gaps in the recordings and insufficient information on the sheets to show people had taken their prescribed medication safely and in accordance with the prescription.