Bluebird Care (Gateshead)

At our last inspection we rated the service 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 and 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.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

We received consistently excellent feedback from people and relatives about the care provided and the caring approach of the staff team. People and relatives enthusiastically told us about the exceptional care the service provided and how staff had exceeded their expectations. People used words such as “my angels” to describe how they felt about the staff team. We heard about many situations where staff had gone the ‘extra mile’ to ensure people received the care wanted and needed.

People, relatives and staff felt the service was safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and the whistle blowing procedure. They also knew how to report concerns.

People received their care from a reliable and consistent staff team whom they knew well.

The provider had effective recruitment checks to ensure new staff were recruited safely and were suitable to work for the service.

Staff supported some people to receive their medicines safely. Accurate records were kept confirming which medicines staff had given to people.

Staff told us they received excellent support and the training they needed. Records confirmed one to one supervisions, appraisals and training were up to date.

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 supported this practice. For instance, staff supported people to make daily living choices and decisions.

Staff supported people to ensure their nutritional needs were met. This included preparing meals people had chosen.

Records showed people had regular input from a range of health professionals in line with their needs. For example, GPs and community nurses.

People’s needs had been fully assessed to identify their care needs. This was used as the basis for developing detailed and personalised care plans. These were currently being reviewed with input from people and relatives.

There had been no formal complaints made about the service. People and relatives only gave us very positive feedback about the service. Although they did tell us they knew how to complain if they wanted.

The provider had a comprehensive approach to quality assurance. A range of checks and audits were completed to help ensure people received good care.

People and staff gave us good feedback about the management of the service. Staff told us they could approach management at any time if they needed support or guidance.

There were good opportunities for people and staff to give feedback about the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Bluebird Care is a domiciliary care service that is registered for the regulated activity of personal care. The service provides care and support to people in their own homes within the borough of Gateshead. The care offered varied from short visits to 24 hour care. A number of people were receiving end of life care. There were nine people using the service at time of inspection.

The service did not have a registered manager in post as they had left and were in the process of de-registering. The service had an acting manager who was in the process of applying to register. 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.

We found that people’s care was delivered safely and in a way of their choosing. They were supported in a manner that reflected their wishes and supported them to remain as independent as possible. Where people’s needs could not be met safely or effectively, work was declined.

People’s medicines were managed well. Staff watched for potential side effects and sought medical advice as needed when people’s conditions changed. People and their family carers were supported to manage their own medicines if they wished.

Staff felt they were well trained and encouraged to look for ways to improve their work. Staff felt valued and this was reflected in the way they talked about the service, the acting manager and the people they worked with.

People who used the service were matched up with suitable staff to support their needs, and if people requested changes these were facilitated quickly. People and relatives were complimentary of the service, and were included and involved by the staff and acting manager. They felt the service provided met their sometimes complex needs.

There were high levels of contact between the staff and people, seeking feedback and offering support as people’s needs changed quickly. People and their relatives felt able to raise any questions or concerns and felt these would be acted upon.

When people’s needs changed staff took action, seeking external professional help and incorporating any changes into care plans and their working practices. Staff worked to support people’s long term relationships. People thought that staff were open and transparent with them about issues and sought their advice and input regularly.

The acting manager was seen as a good leader, by both staff and people using the service. They were trusted and had created a strong sense of commitment to meeting people’s diverse needs and supporting staff.