Archived: Life Path Ferndown

Bluebird Care Ferndown is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing support to 42 people.

There was a registered manager who had been registered at the Ferndown office since October 2016 they covered two Bluebird services which included the Ferndown office and one other local office. 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.

The management team had gone through a period of change and had not had time prior to our inspection to complete improvements which they had identified. The registered manager was relatively new in post and told us they had inherited problems some of which they had actioned. For example they had addressed gaps in staff training. They had also contacted people to ask for their views on the electronic recording system as well as held meetings for staff to share information and listen to staff views. However, there were gaps in the quality of the electronic care plans and people and staff continued to express concerns about communication and changes to schedules. The registered manager was aware of this and had developed a form to update people on changes to their schedules however these measures had not had time to be fully embedded. The operations manager was also new in post; they told us how they planned to make improvements such as valuing and rewarding staff in order to create a stable and consistent staff team. However there had not been time for them to carry out these developments. Staff changes were continuing at the service; the supervisor was leaving the week of our inspection and the coordinator had been promoted to take over the supervisor role. Recruitment for a coordinator was underway.

The supervisor and coordinator provided on call cover in the office and covered visits when staff went absent at short notice. This meant there were times when there was not anyone available in the office to take calls or phone people to inform them if there were staff changes or if staff would be late with visits

There had been a turnover of staff that had been noticed by people and other staff. The registered manager explained there were valid reasons for staff leaving and one member of staff told us they were leaving as part of a carer progression. However another member of staff told us they were leaving as they did not feel they could achieve a good work life balance due to the demanding hours of the job. This meant that while people were supported by staff who knew them, they had to adjust to changes in the staff team when staff left. At the time of our inspection over half the care staff had been employed by the service since July 2016.

Some people were satisfied with the time keeping and scheduling of care staff. However four people and two staff told us that communication was poor and people and staff schedules were often not the same which meant the member of care staff who turned up was not always on people’s schedule.

People generally considered staff to be caring although one person felt some staff just came and did the tasks identified and didn’t chat with them. Another person described the attitude of a temporary member of staff as uncaring and they had asked that the person did not visit them again. Another person was trying to contact the service for help but could not get through. They told us the service told them later their request was not a priority; they considered it was an uncaring attitude. Other people told us particular care staff were excellent. One told us they had lots of laughs with care staff, another told us care staff treated them as if they were their mum.

New staff undertook an induction period which they told us was good and provided them with the right skills for the job. Although one relative told us they would like all new staff to receive training in stoma care so they had the right skills to support their relation. They told us on two occasions they had to show staff themselves. We talked with the registered manager who told us they would address this in future staff inductions. One member of staff told us they had been very well supported by the office staff who had contacted them frequently while they were settling into the post.

People were at reduced risk of harm. Staff were able to describe to us how they would recognise actual or potential abuse and how they would report it. People had their risks assessed and plans were developed to minimise the risk of them coming to harm.

People told us care staff supported them in their preferred ways and people were involved in planning their care. People were contacted by the office staff to check how their care package was going and if changes were needed. Formal reviews took place at least six monthly or sooner if needed.

People's needs were recorded in a plan of care that was kept under review. Risks to people's safety were assessed and plans to reduce and monitor risks to both people using the service and staff were recorded.

Staff received safeguarding training and those we spoke to were aware of how and when to report any concerns.

In order to protect people using the service we saw there was a robust staff recruitment process in place and staff received training and support suitable to their role.

We spoke to five people using the service and they were positive about the service they received and the staff who attended them. Comments included, " they are always on time and very polite" and "they are so very helpful and always cheerful".

There were processes in place to monitor accidents and incidents and the quality of service being provided. Results were not available at this stage because the branch had only recently opened.