Bluebird Care Bromley

Updated 21 June 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) 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 Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: This inspection was carried out by a single inspector and supported by two experts by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type: Bluebird Care Bromley is a domiciliary care agency and provides personal care and support as well as a number of other services to adults living in their own homes.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available and that we could arrange to visit some people. We asked the provider to request permission from people and their relatives to visit or to speak with them about their experiences of using the service.

The inspection site office visit activity took place on the 11 April and we returned on the 16 April to complete the inspection.

What we did: Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included details about incidents the provider must tell us about such as any safeguarding alerts they had raised. The provider also completed a 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. We contacted the local authority to ask for their views. We used this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection we visited six people who used the service and their relatives, where applicable, on 12 April 2019 to ask for their views about the service. The experts by experience spoke with six people and 17 relatives of people using the service by phone. During our office visit we spoke with six care workers, three care service managers, three field supervisors, the community liaison manager and a care coordinator. We spoke with the registered manager and two directors of the service.

We reviewed a range of records. This included eight care plans and three staff recruitment and training records. We also reviewed records used to manage the service for example monitoring records, audits and meeting minutes.

Updated 21 June 2019

About the service: Bluebird Care Bromley provides personal care and a range of different support services to adults living in their own homes. Not everyone using Bluebird Care Bromley receives a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care; that is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection 103 people were using the service who needed assistance with their personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People and their relatives all told us they felt safe and well cared for. Staff understood how to keep people safe and protect them from avoidable harm. Risks to people in relation to their care and the environment were identified assessed and monitored. There were processes in place for the safe administration of medicines. People and family members told us staff arrived on time and they saw the same regular staff. There were effective recruitment and selection procedures in place with relevant checks made before the provider employed new staff.

We found some improvement was needed to the provider’s quality assurance system as it was not always effective at identifying issues. Some records were not always consistently accurate or up to date and this had not been identified by the auditing system. The provider’s electronic system supported the quality monitoring of the service. The registered manager told us further improvements were being made to the system to help identify learning. The service sought feedback from people and their relatives via its website, phone contact and an annual survey to identify any improvements needed. The management team had developed positive relationships with other services.

Most people and their relatives were positive about the management of the service. Some people and some family members told us staff provided an excellent service. Two people and two relatives told us they had found communication from the office was not always reliable and that some newer staff were not always confident about their roles. We saw newer staff were supported by a buddy senior care worker and a field supervisor.

There were some very good aspects to service delivery. The provider assisted the continuity of care through a range of provision to support staff such as pool cars and additional floating staff. Information events were organised in partnership with other agencies to offer relevant information and a free Christmas social event was held to reduce isolation.

Assessments of people's care and support needs were carried out when they started to use the service. People were supported to eat and drink healthily and were supported to make their own meals, where possible. Staff received training and support to meet people's needs. The registered manager supported staff development and staff were offered a range of additional training. 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 support this practice.

People and their relatives told us they were consulted about their care and support needs. They said staff respected their dignity and privacy and were kind and caring. They were encouraged by staff to be as independent as possible. Relatives who accessed the provider’s software system to check the care provided, told us they found this reassuring and helpful.

Staff received training in relation to people’s protected characteristics to identify any areas where people may need support. Care plans were reflective of people`s likes, dislikes and preferences about the care they received.

Staff received training on end of life care and end of life care and support could be provided to people when required. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 31 October 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled 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 part of our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.