Archived: Bluebird Care (Sussex Weald)

Updated 3 July 2015

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.

The inspection took place on the 3 June 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we wanted to be sure that someone would be in to speak with us.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an expert by experience with experience in adult social care. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

The provider had completed 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.

Before the inspection we checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

During our inspection we spoke with eleven people and five relatives who use the service, four care staff, one co-ordinator, two supervisors the registered manager and the operations director. We observed staff working in the office dealing with issues and speaking with people who used the service over the telephone.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. These included the care records for seven people, medicine administration record (MAR) sheets, six staff training records, support and employment records, quality assurance audits, incident reports and records relating to the management of the service.

We spoke with two health care professionals after the inspection to gain their views of the service.

The service was last inspected on 18 April 2013 under the previous provider and there were no concerns.

Updated 3 July 2015

The inspection took place on the 3 June 2015 and was announced. Forty eight hours notice of the inspection was given to ensure that the people we needed to speak to were available in the office.

Bluebird Care Sussex Weald is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support services for a range of people living in their own homes. These included older people, people living with dementia and people with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection 90 people were receiving a care service.

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.

This is the first inspection of this service under the new provider of Bluebird Care Sussex Weald who registered on 10 October 2013.

The experiences of people were positive. People told us they felt safe, that staff were kind and the care they received was good.

There were good systems and processes in place to keep people safe. Assessments of risk had been undertaken and there were clear instructions for staff on what action to take in order to mitigate them. Staff knew how to recognise the potential signs of abuse and what action to take to keep people safe. The registered manager made sure there was enough staff at all times to meet people’s needs. When the provider employed new staff at the service they followed safe recruitment practices.

Assessments were undertaken to identify people’s support needs and care plans were developed outlining how these needs were to be met. We found that care plans were detailed which enabled staff to provide the individual care people needed. People told us they were involved in the care plans and were consulted about their care to ensure wishes and preferences were met. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to obtain specialist advice about people’s care and treatment.

The provider had arrangements in place for the safe administration of medicines. People were supported to receive their medicine when they needed it. People were supported to maintain good health and had assistance to access to health care services when needed.

The service considered peoples capacity using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as guidance. People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed. Staff observed the key principles in their day to day work checking with people that they were happy for them to undertake care tasks before they proceeded.

People were supported at mealtimes to access food and drink of their choice where needed.

There were clear lines of accountability. The service had good leadership and direction from the registered manager. Staff felt fully supported by management to undertake their roles. Staff were given training updates, supervision and development opportunities. For example staff were offered to undertake additional training and development courses to increase their understanding of needs of people using the service.

Feedback was sought by the registered manager via surveys which were sent to people and their relatives. Survey results were positive and any issues identified acted upon. People and relatives we spoke with were aware of how to make a complaint and felt they would have no problem raising any issues. The provider responded to complaints in a timely manner with details of any action taken.