Archived: Bluebird Care (Manchester South)

Updated 15 December 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 20 October 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice as they are a domiciliary care provider and we needed to make sure there would be staff in the office. On 24, 26 and 28 October 2016 we contacted people who received a service and relatives to discuss the service and gain their views.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care 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.

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. This was completed and returned within the required deadline.

We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. We also spoke with the local authority commissioners for the service, the local authority safeguarding team and Healthwatch. Healthwatch England is the national consumer champion in health and care.

We spoke with seven people who used the service and three relatives. We also spoke with the director, registered manager, care co-ordinator, two supervisors and two care workers. We looked at the care records for four people who used the service, medicines records for five people and recruitment records for four staff. We also looked at records about the management of the service, including training records and quality audits.

Updated 15 December 2016

This inspection took place on 20 October 2016 and was announced. We gave the registered provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because it is a community based service and we needed to be sure the office would be staffed and sufficient information would be provided to allow us to contact people in their homes. We contacted people who received a service on 24, 26 and 28 October 2016.

The service was last inspected on 17 September 2013 and was found to be meeting the regulations we inspected against.

Bluebird Care (Manchester South) is registered to provide personal care to people in the community, living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 36 people receiving a regulated activity.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe receiving support from care workers and were happy with the service.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and had received up to date training. Staff were confident in their role to safeguard people and told us they felt confident to raise any concerns. All safeguarding concerns were reported to the local authority, were investigated and appropriate action was taken where necessary.

People had appropriate risk assessments in place where required which were clearly linked to associated care plans. The service also had general risk assessments in place covering environmental factors and work tasks.

Medicines were managed and administered in a safe way. MAR sheets were fully completed and staff received regular competency checks as well as appropriate training to enable them to administer medicines.

People and relatives told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and staff rotas reflected this. People received support from a consistent cohort of carers where possible. The care co-ordinator explained how they tried to ensure people were supported by the same staff members when possible. Staff were recruited in a safe way with appropriate checks carried out prior to them providing care and support to people.

Staff received regular training and all mandatory training was up to date. The service encouraged staff to complete additional courses such as National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ's). One care worker told us they had recently discussed pursuing an NVQ training course with the registered manager during a recent supervision.

Staff told us and records confirmed they received regular supervisions. Staff also received annual appraisals which were recorded and included training and development opportunities as well as achievements and areas for improvement.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were able to describe how they gained consent from people prior to providing support. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people, respecting their decisions if they chose to refuse an aspect of their care and the importance of encouraging people to make decisions.

People were supported by staff to meet their nutritional needs where appropriate. Specific care plans were in place containing adequate detail to inform and guide staff how to provide effective support to people. People told us staff members asked what they would like to eat and made whatever they wanted.

People and relatives spoke highly of care staff and felt they were friendly, kind and very nice. People felt comfortable and at ease receiving support from staff.

Care plans were personalised, detailed and updated regularly. People and their relatives felt involved in planning their care and were confident communicating any changes they wanted to management.

People knew how to make a complaint and felt confident to do so. They informed us they had no issues or problems with the service to complain about. The registered manager investigated all complaints received and took appropriate action.

The registered manager operated an open door policy and staff were happy that they could approach management with any issues or concerns and felt supported in their roles because of this.

Regular staff and senior team meetings took place as part of ongoing monitoring and improvement of the service.

The service regularly received compliments in the form of thank you cards, emails and letters from people who received a service and relatives.