Bluebird Care (Manchester South)

Updated 5 September 2018

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 comprehensive inspection took place on 25 and 26 July 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector on both dates of the inspection. Furthermore, two other inspectors made phone calls to people who used the service users to seek their views.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service, including statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. We also looked at a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to plan the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with nine people who used the service, two relative’s, the registered manager, the deputy manager, a company director, and six staff members.

We looked at six people’s care plans and risk assessments. We reviewed five staff personnel files and records relating to recruitment, induction, training and supervision. We looked at three people’s medication records and audits relating to medication management, recruitment, safeguarding and quality assurance. We checked people’s feedback on the service, including the timeliness of calls and that whether people were involved in planning their care. We looked at health and safety and infection control and how risks were managed. We visited, with consent, the properties of three people receiving personal care from Bluebird care (Manchester South).

Updated 5 September 2018

The inspection took place on the 25 and 26 July 2018. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice that we were conducting the inspection to ensure there was someone available at the office.

Bluebird Care (Manchester South) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. The service provides care to a range of people with different needs, including people living with dementia, learning disabilities, physical disabilities, mental health and sensory impairment. When we inspected the service, there were 30 people receiving domiciliary care. Calls to people’s properties ranged from 30 to 60 minutes per visit and there was one person receiving a regular four to six hour support session. Not everyone receives regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Our last inspection of this service was on the 20, 24, 26 and 28 October 2016 and we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. Since the last inspection, the service has moved locations.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 were protected from abuse. Staff followed the provider's and the local authority’s safeguarding procedures to identify and report concerns to people's well-being and safety. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed.

Comprehensive assessments were carried out to identify any risks or potential risks to the person using the service. This included any environmental risks in people's homes, risks in the community and any risks in relation to the care and support needs of the person.

Staff were recruited safely and trained to meet people's individual needs. Staff received regular supervision and felt supported by the management.

We received mixed responses to late calls. The majority of people said their calls were on time but two people said they were often late. There were systems in place to monitor the times staff attended people’s properties and evidence showed that any late calls were not normally more than 15 minutes late which is recorded in the contract with the service.

Medication was well managed and staff were fully trained in the safe administration of medication. Medication was recorded on a computerised system which gave prompts to staff to support or administer medication to people.

Daily notes were recorded on a computerised system. The system gave prompts as to what care tasks were required on each visit and the tasks flagged red until the staff member authorised that they had completed each task. This assisted in ensuring staff completed the required tasks during the visit.

Care plans were regularly reviewed and individual to the person. Care plans contained detailed information of people’s personal preferences and staff we spoke with were aware of what each person required.

Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act [2005] and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity.

People we spoke with told us that staff members were kind and caring. We observed kind and dignified interactions between staff and people who used the service.

People were aware of how to raise concerns and felt the registered manager was approachable.

There were quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.