Bluebird Care (St Helens)

Updated 8 November 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 the 21st and 25th September 2018. The first date was announced and involved a visit to the service’s main office. The second day involved contacting people who used the service for their views about the support they received and was also announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure that the registered provider was available to assist us.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before our visit, we reviewed all the information we had in relation to the service. This included notifications and comments, concerns and safeguarding information. Our visit involved looking at 10 care plans, training records, policies and procedures, medication systems and various audits relating to the quality of the service.

In addition, we had contact with seven people who used the service. We also spoke to members of the management team, the operations manager and other members of the management team. We had contact with six care staff members. We also spoke with the local authority who commissioned the service. No concerns were identified.

As part of our inspection, we ask registered provider to complete 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. A PIR was returned to us when we asked.

Updated 8 November 2018

We carried out an inspection of Bluebird Care St Helens on the 21st and 25th September 2018. Both visits were announced to ensure someone was available to assist us. Both days included visits to the office and talking to staff and people who used the service.

The last inspection of this service was in December 2015. At that inspection the service was rated as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection or ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. The service operates within the St Helens area of Merseyside with one person being supported in a neighbouring borough. The service operates from an office base close to the town centre of St Helens and is close to public transport links.

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. The registered manager was not present during our visits.

We found that staff had had received training in how to protect vulnerable adults and were clear about how they could report any allegations of abuse. They were also clear about the agencies they could speak to if they had concerns about poor practice within the service.

Information was available confirming that when equipment such as hoists were used by people as part of their support; details of service dates and contractors contact details were in place.

Risk assessments were in place identifying any potential hazards within the environment that could pose a risk to people and how the risks could be minimised. These assessments extended to each person’s home environment and highlighted measures to ensure the safety of people was safeguarded.

Assessments were also in place highlighting the risks people faced from health issues or from being safely transferred from place to place within their home. These were closely monitored and reviewed regularly and were agreed by people.

Sufficient staff were available to attend to people’s needs. Staff rotas were available on a real time computerised monitoring system to ensure that calls were not missed.

Staff recruitment was robust with checks in place to ensure that new members of staff were suitable people to support vulnerable adults.

Medication management was robust and promoted the well-being and safety of people who used the service. Checks were in place to ensure that medication was given when needed and staff who administered medication received appropriate training and had their competency checked.

Staff received training and supervision appropriate to their role. A structured process of induction was in place to prepare new staff for their role.

The registered provider had taken the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act into account. This was done through training and assessments in respect of people’s capacity.

Appropriate nutritional support was provided to those who required it.

People told us that the staff team were caring and respectful at all times when providing personal care and support.

Confidential information was kept secure at all times.

Care plans were person centred and outlined the preferences of people such as terms of address. All care plans were reviewed regularly and the contents were agreed by people who used the service.

A system for people to make complaints was available. Ths meant that people could be confident that any concerns they had were listened to.

The registered manager and management team adopted an open and transparent approach to running the service and sought to provide a career path for staff within the service to progress. Staff were complimentary about the management team and reported that they felt supported at all times.

People considered that the service was well run and had had the opportunity to comment on their experiences through surveys and regular contact with the office team.

Notifications required by law of any adverse events within service were always sent to us and the rating from our last visit was put on prominent display.