Bluebird Care (Merton)

Updated 19 October 2019

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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

An inspector and an Expert by Experience carried out this inspection. 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 that provides personal care to people living in their own homes.

The service had a manager registered with the CQC, who also owned the franchise for the Merton branch of Bluebird Care. 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 visit because we needed to be sure the office-based managers would all be available for us to speak with during our inspection. This two-day inspection started on 23 September and ended on 26 September 2019.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed all the key information providers are required to send us about their service, including statutory notifications and our Provider Information Return (PIR), which providers are required to send us. A PIR provides us with some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to help us plan our inspection.

During the inspection

On the first day of our inspection we received feedback about this home care agency from six people using the service, seven relatives and five care workers we spoke with over the telephone. On the second day we visited the providers office’s and spoke in-person with the registered manager, the deputy manager and a specialist health care manager. We also looked at a range of records that included six people’s electronic care plans, as well as four staff files in relation to their recruitment, training and supervision. A variety of other records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were also read.

Updated 19 October 2019

About the service

Bluebird Care (Merton) is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 70 people aged 50 and over were using the service. Some of these people were living with dementia, had mental health care needs or autism.

Seven people who used the service did not receive any personal care from this domiciliary care agency. 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

People told us they remained happy with the home care service they received from Bluebird Care (Merton). A quote we received from a relative summed up how most people felt about the service – “Staff really do understand dementia…Since we’ve been with Bluebird, my [family member] is a different person; they really have made things better for her.”

Since our last inspection, the provider has improved the way they monitor the quality and safety of the service people receive by ensuring their governance systems were operated effectively. For example, the provider had increased the number of office-based managers and staff and their quality monitoring roles and responsibilities. The managers now recognised the importance of analysing and learning lessons when things went wrong to continuously improve the quality and safety of the home care service they provided.

People, their relatives and staff all spoke positively about the way the office-based managers ran the agency. The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people using the service, their relatives and staff. The provider worked in close partnership with other health and social care professionals and agencies to plan and deliver people’s packages of care and support.

People were supported by staff who knew how to prevent and manage risks they might face and keep them safe from avoidable harm. Staff continued to undergo all the relevant pre-employment checks to ensure their suitability and fitness for the role. People received continuity of personal care and support from staff who usually arrived on time for their scheduled visits and were familiar with their needs and wishes. People received their medicines as they were prescribed. The service’s arrangements for controlling infection remained effective.

People continued to receive personal care from staff who had completed training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities. 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. Where staff were responsible for this, people were supported to maintain a nutritionally well-balanced diet. People continued to be supported to stay healthy and well.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were treated equally and had their human rights and diversity respected, including their spiritual and cultural needs and wishes. People were encouraged and supported to develop their independent living skills. Assessments of people’s support needs were carried out before they started using the service.

Care plans remained personalised, which ensured people received personal care that was tailored to meet their individual needs and wishes. People were encouraged to make decisions about the care and support they received and had their choices respected. Managers and staff understood the Accessible Information Standard and ensured people were given information in a way they could understand. People were satisfied with the way the provider dealt with their concerns and complaints. When people were nearing the end of their life, they had received compassionate and supportive care from this agency.

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

Rating at the last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 September 2018).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bluebird Care (Merton) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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.