Bluebird Care (Rother & Hastings)

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. The service has remained good. This meant the service was managed effectively and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Staff told us they worked well as a team to ensure people received safe and effective care. Staff felt the service was well managed and that they were supported by the office team and their colleagues. One staff member told us, “Bluebird are good at providing positive feedback. It’s great. It’s just so nice to be part of a team, you know that everyone cares, I would be happy for any staff member to go to my family. We have such a good reputation in the area. You find you go to one client and end up with two more due to word of mouth. Great team, good quality care that the clients do deserve.” There was opportunity for staff to feedback and contribute during team meetings and staff told us they felt listened to. The registered manager worked hard to ensure staff were supported. Staff feedback included, “I feel I am supported by the office staff and registered manager. Ninety-nine percent of the time the office answers the questions I ask. Communication is great” “It is the personal level; they talk to me. If I am ill, they do their best to cover my shifts. They are professional but very caring, they actually care about us they go the extra mile.”

The service had leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. People and relatives spoke positively regarding the day-to-day management of the service. People were aware of who managed the service and told us they often spoke to the RM directly and found them very helpful and supportive. One said, “All the office staff are very good. I think I know everyone in the office now.” Staff spoke highly of the RM. Comments included, “I feel supported they have been great; I cannot thank them enough” and “The management and office staff are very caring. They try to match our skill sets this is great to see.” “They are respectful to me as an employee.” Staff received the training they needed. Further support was in place in the form of refresher training if required. Staff told us of examples where they had shared a lack of experience or confidence in a particular aspect of care and confirmed that support was provided. The registered manager had oversight of staff training and the day to day running of the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The registered manager told us they had an open-door policy, and this was confirmed in the feedback we received from staff. There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff were aware of this and how to raise any concerns if they needed to. Staff felt if they shared concerns or feedback with the registered manager, this would be listened to and actioned appropriately.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff gave us examples where they had been supported when personal and family issues had occurred. They told us, “You are never made to feel guilty they accept you can only do what you can do. We have had challenging clients, when I raised that the office staff they have always been very understanding. I’m quite a sensitive person, it took me a long time to build my confidence.” When staff had been recruited under sponsorship from abroad, extra support and training had been provided to ensure staff were appropriately trained. This included opportunities to familiarise themselves with kitchen equipment and types of food they may not be familiar with.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the information about risk, performance and outcomes. The registered manager had systems in place to ensure oversight of the service. Some tasks were delegated to supervisors. For example, reviews of care plans and spot checks/ competencies completed for staff. We found that processes were generally good. The registered manager had good oversight and was aware of auditing and reviews which needed to be completed on a regular basis and checked these had been completed. Audits were used to identify any trends or themes to take forward for future improvement. We identified some areas of development to ensure continued improvement moving forward. Changes to the incident/accidents and concerns had recently been improved and this was being reviewed to ensure this was evaluated and any changes needed implemented moving forwards. In follow up to an assessment completed at another of the provider’s services, the registered manager had reviewed processes in place at this service and made improvements which were still being embedded into practice. This evidenced a willingness to continually review and improve the service and care provided. A quality improvement plan was in place to identify and address any issues raised during auditing. The registered manager knew exactly what needed to be completed regularly and told us they were considering implementing a weekly/monthly schedule. This would assist other senior staff, if in the event of the registered manager being away from the office, these governance tasks would need to be carried out up by someone else. This would ensure consistency and continued oversight. Provider level governance audits were completed regularly and the registered manager told us the provider was in regular contact with the service.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Management and staff worked well with other health agencies and were aware of people’s individual needs and who was involved in their care. Health professionals feedback included, “The management team are excellent at communicating and easy to liaise with about the clients. They are easily contactable and always on hand for advice and updates.” Staff supported people to attend appointments. This ensured people’s health as monitored effectively. Any changes or updates were shared amongst teams to ensure that people received ‘joined up’ care. A staff member told us, “I had a situation where a client had a sore, I phoned the office and spoke to the supervisor. She spoke to the client to ask if they would be happy for district nurse to come out. The client said yes, this has now been checked and in hand.”

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. People, relatives and staff views were sought, and feedback was used to continually review and improve the service. People told us they were sent questionnaires for feedback every year and had many opportunities on the phone or by email to feedback or discuss any concerns they may have. A quality improvement plan was in place. This included improvements to reviewing records and improved processes for incidents/accidents and wounds.