Background to this inspection
Updated
12 July 2023
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 Health and Social Care Act 2008.
Inspection team
This inspection was carried out by one inspector and one 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.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
Registered Manager
This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.
At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post. A new manager was in post and was in the process of applying to be the registered manager.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or manager would be in the office to support the inspection.
Inspection activity started on 9 June 2023 and ended on 20 June 2023. We visited the location’s office on 9 June 2023.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We also used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke with 6 people who use the service and 6 relatives of people who use the service. We also spoke with 6 staff, including the manager, regional operations manager, managing director, and care workers. We reviewed a range of records. This included 4 people's care records and 4 staff records. A variety of records relating to the management of the service were also reviewed.
Following our visit to the service, we reviewed more records relating to the management of the service.
Updated
12 July 2023
Bluebird Care (Sutton) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. The service provides support to older people, people with disabilities and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 51 people using the service.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is 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 received safe care and support. There were risk assessments and care plans in place for people and staff knew people and their needs and preferences very well. However, at the time of our inspection not all people’s risk assessments included sufficiently detailed and personalised information about their level of vulnerability to COVID-19. After our inspection the provider put a new process in place to ensure all people’s risk assessments contained all the necessary information and level of detail required regarding their individual risk of COVID-19.
People received their medicines safely. However, at the time of our inspection some people did not have sufficiently detailed and personalised information in their care records regarding some of their ‘when required’ medicines. After our inspection the provider updated the relevant people’s medicines information to include this. The provider also put a new process in place to ensure people’s records contained the necessary information and detail concerning their 'when required' medicines.
There were systems and processes in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report abuse.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and staff recruitment followed safer recruitment procedures.
Infection prevention and control followed best practice guidance and we were assured the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and reported. The provider used the information to identify why things had gone wrong and took action to improve the service.
Managers and staff were clear about their roles, they understood regulatory requirements and their duty to be open and honest with people when something went wrong. There were quality assurance systems in place and action was taken to improve the care provided when issues were identified. However, at the time of inspection not all the provider’s audits were effective, as the provider had not identified the issues we found. During our inspection the provider put in place new processes to ensure their audits were effective and would identify the issues in future.
We have recommended the provider reviews all their compliance systems and processes to ensure the procedures in place are robust and effective.
There was a caring and positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive, empowering and achieved good outcomes for people. People were supported to be as independent as possible. The provider engaged and involved people, their relatives and staff in people’s care and the development of the service. Managers provided staff with a good level of support. People, their families, staff and managers spoke positively about each other and feedback from people and their families about the service was complimentary.
Staff worked in partnership with healthcare services, other professionals, and community organisations to meet people’s needs.
Managers were proactive and engaged in a number of professional networks for sharing learning to improve practice.
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.
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 (10 January 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We undertook a focused inspection to look at the key questions Safe and Well-led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bluebird Care (Sutton) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.