Bluebird Care (Chichester)

Updated 14 August 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 was 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 inspection took place on 15 and 16 May April 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours notice of the inspection visit because we needed to make arrangements to visit people in their own homes and to ensure staff would be at the provider’s office.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an Expert by Experience who carried out telephone interviews with ten people (or their relative) who received a service from Bluebird Care (Chichester). An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before the inspection we checked information that we held about the home and the service provider. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This 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.

During the inspection we visited two people in their homes at the time they were receiving care from care workers and observed how they supported people. We also spoke with a relative of someone who received care.

We sent survey questionnaires to 50 people and 16 of these were completed and returned to us. We also sent survey questionnaires to 50 relatives and one of these was completed and returned. Forty-two surveys were sent to staff and seven returned. The collated information contained in these surveys has been used in the inspection report.

On day two of the inspection we visited the provider’s office where we spoke with the registered manager, the operations director and the provider’s director. We spoke also with five care workers and a supervisor.

We looked at the care plans and associated records for ten people. We reviewed other records, including the provider’s internal checks and audits, staff training records, staff rotas, incidents, records of medicines administered to people and complaints. We looked at staff training records and staff supervision records.

Updated 14 August 2018

The inspection took place on 14 and 15 May 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency based in Chichester, West Sussex. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection it provided personal care to 114 people in their own homes, in the Chichester and mid West Sussex area. These people were aged between 30 and 100 years and had a range of care needs. Bluebird Care (Chichester) is part of a franchise brand of services of Bluebird Care which operate across the United Kingdom.

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.

People were consulted about their care and had agreed to the care being provided. The provider had policies and procedures regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and care workers received training in this.

People said they received a reliable service although there were comments that some of the arrival time could be improved; care workers also reported not having sufficient travel time between each appointment. The provider was aware of this and had already acted to address this. The provider had introduced an IT system whereby care workers used a smart phone to access care records and to record the care tasks. The system enabled the administrative and management team to oversee all care appointments and alerted them if any calls or tasks had not been completed.

People and their relatives said they would recommend the service to others and reported they received a responsive and caring service. Comments from people included the following for example, “They do anything I ask. I’m fairly unsteady on my feet. If they get everything done that I need them and they still have time they will make me a cuppa and have a chat with me. When you’re on your own it’s good to know you have someone nice who you can trust coming in and they’ll do what I ask.”

People said they felt safe with the care workers and received safe care. Care workers had completed training in safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they had any concerns about the safety of welfare of people.

Risks to people were assessed and there were details in care plans of how to mitigate these risks and keep people safe. These included procedures for transferring people and we observed care workers did this safely.

Care workers followed procedures to prevent and control infection.

The provider took action to look into any concerns such as safeguarding incidents.

Care workers were supported by a range of training courses and regular supervision. There was an induction procedure for new care workers as well as the monitoring and appraisal of their work. Staff felt supported and had access to management staff for advice and guidance.

People were supported with food and drink, where this was applicable, which was recorded in care records. Health care needs were monitored and referrals made to health care professionals.

The provider looked into and responded appropriately to complaints.

There were no people in receipt of end of life care and the provider had plans to train key staff in this and to register for accreditation with the Gold Standards Framework for end of life care.

People, their relatives and care workers stated the provider was open and responsive to any concerns raised or suggestions. People were consulted and involved in their care reviews and there was a system for asking people for their views about the service which was part of the ongoing monitoring of the agency.