Archived: Bluebird Care (North Tyneside)

Updated 7 August 2015

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

This inspection took place on 28 April 2015 and 6 May 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to assist us.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Prior to the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form which asks the provider to give some key information about the service, highlighting what the service does well, and identifying where and how improvements are to be made. We reviewed the information returned to us by the provider in the PIR, alongside information held by the Commission (CQC) about the service. This included reviewing statutory notifications that the provider had sent us and any safeguarding information received within the last 12 months. In addition, we issued questionnaires to people who used the service, their relatives or friends and staff, to gather their views of the service. We also contacted North Tyneside safeguarding adults team and North Tyneside local authority contracts team. We used the information that these parties provided to inform the planning of our inspection.

As part of our inspection we visited three people in their own homes and spoke with four people on the telephone, all of whom used the service. We spoke with three people’s relatives, six care staff, the registered manager and the provider. We reviewed a range of records related to people’s care and the management of the service. These included ten people’s care records, seven staff recruitment, training and induction records, medicine administration records (MARs) and records related to quality assurance.

Updated 7 August 2015

This inspection took place on 28 April 2015 and 6 May 2015 and was announced. This was so we could be sure that management would be available in the office as this is a domiciliary care service. We last inspected this service in June 2013 where we found three breaches of regulation, which the provider addressed and at a follow up inspection in October 2013 we found the service was meeting all of these regulations.

Bluebird Care (North Tyneside) provides personal care and support to people in their own homes and help to access the community. At the time of our inspection the provider delivered care and support to 69 people and employed 31 members of staff. The service supports people with mental health issues, physical disabilities, sensory impairments, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders, older persons and people living with dementia. The care and support provided ranged from 24 hour care packages to short visits, which for example supported people to access the community, and provided companionship.

There was a registered manager in post who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since January 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 spoke highly of staff whom they said supported them safely and in line with their needs. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and there were channels available through which staff could raise concerns. Records showed that safeguarding matters had been handled appropriately and referred on to either people’s social workers or North Tyneside local authority safeguarding team for investigation.

People’s needs and risks that they were exposed to in their daily lives were assessed, documented and regularly reviewed. Some records would benefit from further detail and we discussed this with the provider and registered manager who took our comments on board. Medicines were managed and administered safely. Staff supported people to manage health and safety risks within their own homes and refer matters on to third parties if necessary. Recruitment processes were thorough and included checks to ensure that staff employed were of good character, appropriately skilled and physically and mentally fit. Staffing levels were determined by people’s needs and the number of people using the service. We had no concerns about staffing numbers.

Records related to staff training showed that this was up to date and staff received the support they needed to ensure they had the skills relevant to their roles and the varying care needs of the people using the service. Supervisions and appraisals took place regularly as did staff meetings. Staff told us they felt supported by management and could approach them at any time.

CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and deprivation of liberty safeguards. There was evidence to show the service understood their legal responsibility under this act and that they assessed people’s capacity when their care commenced and on an on-going basis if necessary. Decisions that needed to be made in people’s best interests had been appropriately referred to their social workers.

People reported that staff were very caring and supported them in a manner which promoted and protected their privacy, dignity and independence. People said they enjoyed kind and positive relationships with staff and they had continuity of care from the same members of the care staff team whenever possible, which they appreciated.

People knew how to complain and records showed that complaints were handled appropriately and records kept of each complaint received. People’s views and those of their relatives were gathered through surveys.

Care records were person centred and demonstrated that the provider was responsive to people’s needs when necessary. People were supported to access the services of external healthcare professionals if they needed help in this area.

Management promoted an open culture and staff told us that they found the registered manager and the provider approachable as a result. The provider had clear visions and values and had future plans in place about how she wanted the business to develop. Audits and quality monitoring of the service delivered was carried out regularly and records showed that where any issues were identified these were addressed promptly.