Archived: Bluebird Care Newmarket and Fenland

Updated 22 December 2016

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 agency, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place over two days which was on 12 & 14 December 2016 and was announced. It was carried out by one inspector.

The provider was given less than 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a domicillary care agency; we needed to be sure that someone would be as we did not want to impact on the training the provider had already arranged for their staff.

Before the inspection we looked at all of the information that we had about the agency. This included information from any notifications received by us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Also before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the agency, what the agency does well and improvements they plan to make.

On the first day of our inspection we spoke on the telephone with three members of care staff; four people who used the agency, and two people’s relatives. During the second day of our inspection we visited the agency office where we spoke with one director; the registered manager; one supervisor and one co-ordinator. We looked at four people’s care records; audits; minutes of staff meetings and records in relation to the management of staff.

Updated 22 December 2016

Bluebird Care Newmarket and Fenland is registered to provide care to people living at home. People using the agency have a range of physical and mental health needs. The agency provides care to people who live in neighbouring towns and villages. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people using the agency and there were sixteen care staff employed to look after them.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 12 & 14 December 2016 and was announced. It was carried out by one inspector.

The provider is required, as part of their registration, to have a registered manager. A registered manager was in post at the time of our visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage a registered service. 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 kept safe because staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. There were enough staff to support people with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed so that only suitable staff looked after people who used the agency. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed or were enabled to remain independent with this part of their care.

People were helped to be independent with eating and drinking and people took sufficient amounts of food and drink to keep them well. The nature of the care promoted and maintained their well-being and reduced their sense of social isolation. People were enabled to remain independent with making their own health care appointments.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA 2005] and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and to report on what we find. At the time of our inspection no person was assessed to lack capacity. Staff members had some understanding of the application of the MCA. The provider had some awareness of the actions to take if a person required a DoLS application to be made.

People benefited from being looked after by staff, who were trained and supported to do their job.

Staff treated people in a kind and caring way. People were actively consulted about their planned care. General advocacy services were not being used at the time of our inspection although the provider was aware of the availability of such services.

People’s individual health and social care needs were met. Staff had up-to-date information which enabled them to provider the right level of care to meet people’s assessed needs. There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and these were acted upon.

There were management arrangements in place which helped care staff to do their job. Staff were supported and managed to look after people in a safe way. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken, if these were needed. Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure that people were kept safe and well.