We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird care (Central Bedfordshire) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bluebird care (Central Bedfordshire), you can give feedback on this service.
Bluebird care (Central Bedfordshire) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger people, people living with dementia, people with a physical disability, older people and people with sensory impairments. Its office is based in the town of Flitwick and provides a service across central Bedfordshire. At the time of our inspection visit there were 107 people receiving a service of personal care.
Peoples experience of using this service:
Appropriate steps had been taken to safeguard people. Sufficient numbers of staff with the required skills had been recruited safely and deployed to keep people safe. Risks to people were identified and managed well. One person spoke fondly of their care staff and said, “I feel safe knowing I can rely on [staff]. I have never, ever had a missed [care] visit.” People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed by trained and competent staff. Lessons were learned when things did not go quite so well. Infection control systems promoted good hygiene standards.
Skilled staff were provided with the necessary support including coaching, shadowing experienced staff and regular supervision. People's independence was upheld and promoted. Staff enabled people to access healthcare support by working well with others involved in people’s care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were cared for by staff with compassion, kindness and dignity. Staff knew people well and they promoted people’s privacy, culture needs and independence. People had a say and choice in who and how their care was provided. One person told us, "I do think it's more than a job to my care [staff]. With the [care needs] I have, they seem to understand how I feel. Brilliant [staff].”
People’s care was person centred and based on what was important to them. People's concerns were dealt with and acted on before they became a complaint and to the person’s satisfaction. Systems were in place to meet people’s end of life care needs and help ensure a dignified and pain free death. One compliment from a relative stated, "The family wish to express our sincere thanks to all the staff who cared for [person] and [staff] who looked after then with such kindness. Thank you also for the kind expression of sympathy and condolences which were a great comfort to us all."
The registered manager promoted and supported an honest and open staff team culture. Staff upheld the provider's values by helping people live a meaningful life. Governance and oversight of the quality of the service was effective in driving improvements which changed people's lives for the better. People had a say in how the service was run. The service and its management team worked well with other organisations. People received care that was highly coordinated and as a result they led a life they might otherwise not have been able to. One person told us, "I have used other care agencies and Bluebird Care is by far the best."
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated as Good. (report published 18 October 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The inspection was announced and took place on 7 and 8 September 2016.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service was exceptionally well led by a dedicated registered manager, who was very well supported by a forward thinking management team. The culture and ethos within the service was motivating, transparent and empowering; staff told us that they were proud to work for the service and wanted it to be the very best it could be. Staff and the registered manager were inspired to do their best and were very committed to their work, facing up to challenges. They used these qualities to deliver holistic and personalised care to each person they supported. Each member of the provider team had exceptionally strong values, with a shared vision to ensure people had the best possible quality of care.
The registered manager and director had a clear vision for the service and its future development. They wanted the service to be influenced by the needs of the people it supported and were committed to providing high quality care that was personalised to people’s needs. To ensure this took place they worked in conjunction with people and their relatives when trialling new systems and processes. Visions and values were cascaded to staff who attended regular meetings, which gave them an opportunity to share ideas, and exchange information about possible areas for improvements to the registered manager. Ideas for change were always welcomed, and used to drive improvements and make positive changes for people.
The director and registered manager demonstrated their passion for using robust quality monitoring systems and processes to make positive changes, drive future improvement and identify where action needed to be taken. All staff, irrespective of their role, wanted standards of care to remain high and so used the outcome of audit checks and quality questionnaires to enable them to provide excellent quality care.
We found a very progressive and positive atmosphere which extended throughout the service, amongst all staff and could be seen within the delivery of care to people. People and their relatives were placed firmly at the heart of the service, with all aspects of care being focused on them, their objectives and goals.
People were kept safe by staff that had a good understanding of how to identify abuse, and knew how to respond appropriately to any concerns that arose. Staff were confident that any concerns would be fully investigated. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed so as to minimise the potential for reoccurrence, and had been measured against people’s right to take risks and remain independent.
Staff numbers were based upon the amount of care that people required, and were flexible to ensure that people were kept safe. Staff worked in geographical teams to ensure people received care and support from a regular team of staff. Contingency plans were in place in the event of staff shortages. Robust recruitment procedures ensured that only staff who were considered suitable to support people worked within the service.
Safe systems were in place to ensure that people received their medication in line with their prescriptions. Staff ensured that medication was administered and recorded in accordance with best practice guidelines.
An induction programme was in place for new staff which prepared them suitably for their role and assessed their competencies against essential standards. Staff were also provided with a range of training to help them to carry out their roles and meet people’s needs. Regular supervision and annual appraisals, to further support and develop staff were also provided.
Staff complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and worked hard to ensure that where possible, people were actively involved in decision about their care and support needs. Staff knew how to act if people did not have the capacity to make independent decisions.
People were supported by staff to receive an adequate dietary intake, based upon their specific dietary needs. People received the assistance they required to ensure they had enough to eat and drink. Liaison with healthcare professionals took place when needed and prompt action was taken in response to illness or changes in people’s physical and mental health.
There was a culture of individualised care which placed people at the heart of the service and people told us that staff often went the extra mile for them. We found that positive and caring relationships had been developed between staff and people. People told us that staff treated them in a friendly and caring manner, with kindness and compassion, and cared for them according to their individual needs. Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and worked hard to ensure they had choices based upon their personal preferences.
Staff were very knowledgeable about the specific needs of the people they supported and used this information to ensure that people received person centred care, which ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained.
People's needs were assessed prior to them being provided with care and support. Care plans were updated on a regular basis, or as and when people's care needs changed. People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and were confident that the service would listen to them. Where action was required to be taken to address complaints, we found that lessons were learnt from this to drive future improvement.