We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird Care (Gravesham & Dartford) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bluebird Care (Gravesham & Dartford), you can give feedback on this service.
Bluebird Care (Gravesham & Dartford) is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the agency was providing personal care to 90 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
There was a positive, person centred, open, learning culture in the service led by the providers values and a well-respected and caring registered manager. Staff were highly appreciated and valued; and their achievements were recognised. This had forged a highly motivated staff team and high-quality care for people with positive outcomes. The provider had ensured effective quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and manage the risks and quality of care and to drive forward improvements. Staff recommended working for the provider and people recommended care from the provider.
The provider and registered manager used every possible opportunity to proactively seek, identify and promote improvements in the service for people and staff. Action plans ensured improvements were implemented. People, their loved ones, staff and the local public were effectively engaged in the service and feedback we received was overwhelmingly positive. Staff went beyond their roles to help improve people’s quality of life and well-being. Staff worked well with other agencies to ensure people’s needs were met. Staff well-being was cared for and the provider had made a strong contribution to the local community.
People and their loved ones we spoke with told us they felt safe and were happy with the care they received. There were enough suitable, well trained and safely recruited staff deployed to ensure people’s needs were met. People always received their care visits and were not rushed. If carers were running late due to an unavoidable cause people were informed. Risks were well managed to keep people safe from harm and lessons were learnt from incidents to prevent them reoccurring. When people received support with their medicines this was done safely by competent staff. People were protected from the risk and spread of infection and had been well cared for to stay safe during COVID-19.
People received person centred care which met their needs and respected their choices by staff who knew them well. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and their communication needs were met. People and their loved ones were empowered to raise any concerns or complaints and consistently told us any concerns were dealt with. People were supported to maintain their interests as far as possible and to keep in touch with their loved ones during COVID-19. People received good end of life care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 12 November 2019). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 17 September 2019. Breaches of legal requirements were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve staffing and receiving and acting on complaints.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Responsive and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from Requires Improvement to Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bluebird Care (Gravesham & Dartford) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Bluebird Care (Gravesham and Dartford) is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Gravesham and Dartford) receives a regulated activity; personal care. 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 our inspection 116 people were receiving the regulated activity; personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People did not always receive their calls on time. Some people told us they had complained about late calls. However, the provider had no records of these complaints. The provider’s quality assurance and monitoring systems were also not always effective in identifying issues or driving improvements.
The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. However, the registered manager had failed to notify the CQC about a safeguarding concern as required under their registration. The service had procedures in place to reduce the risk of infections. However, a person told us some staff were not following these procedures. We have made a recommendation that the provider and staff follow best practice guidance in infection control.
Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work and there were enough staff available to meet people’s care and support needs. Risks to people had been assessed to ensure their needs were safely met. People’s care and support needs were assessed before they started to use the service. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to support people appropriately. Staff were supported through an induction, training and regular supervision. People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and had access to health care professionals when they needed them. 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.
People and their relatives (where appropriate) had been consulted about their care and support needs. The registered manager and staff knew how to access support for people at the end of their lives, if it was required.
The registered manager had worked in partnership with health and social care providers to plan and deliver an effective service. The provider took the views of people, their relatives and staff into account through satisfaction surveys. The provider was proactive in the local community and offered people opportunities, free of charge, to take part in social activities which reduced the risk of social isolation. Staff enjoyed working at the service and said they received good support from the registered manager and office staff.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 02/09/2016).
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection.
Enforcement
We have identified breaches because staff were not always deployed in a way that met people’s needs and because the provider did not have an effective system for managing complaints.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At our last inspection on 6 January 2014 the service met the regulations inspected.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
People using the service and relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided. People told us they were safe when cared for by care workers. People and relatives also spoke positively about care workers and management at the service.
Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm and care workers demonstrated that they were aware of these. Care workers had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.
Risk assessments had been carried out and care workers were aware of potential risks to people and how to protect people from harm.
There were appropriate arrangements in place in respect of medicines. Care workers had received medicines training and policies and procedures were in place. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were completed correctly and the service had an effective medicines audit in place.
People told us their care workers turned up on time and they mostly received the same care worker on and had consistency in the level of care they received. This was also confirmed by relatives we spoke with. The service had a system in place to monitor care workers punctuality.
People and relatives told us that they were confident that care workers had the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Care workers spoke positively about their experiences working for the service and said that they received support from management and morale amongst staff was positive.
Care workers had a good understanding of and were aware of the importance of treating people with respect and dignity. Feedback from relatives indicated that positive relationships had developed between people using the service and their care worker and people were treated with dignity and respect.
People received care that was responsive to their needs. People's daily routines were reflected in their care plans and the service encouraged and prompted people's independence. Care plans included information about people's preferences.
The service had a complaints procedure and there was a record of complaints received. People and relatives spoke positively about the service and told us they thought it was well managed.
There was a clear management structure in place with a team of care workers, office staff, the registered manager, the operations manager and the provider.
Staff were informed of changes occurring within the service through regular staff meetings. Staff told us that they received up to date information and had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns they had at these meetings.
Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. We found the service had obtained feedback about the quality of the service people received through review meetings and satisfaction surveys. Records showed positive feedback had been provided about the service. The
service also undertook a range of checks and audits of the quality of the service and took action to improve the service as a result
We saw that people's consent was obtained where possible before care and treatment was undertaken. We observed that the care given was safe and appropriate and based on effective care planning and risk assessments. This meant that people's individual needs were met and preferences were taken into account.
People were protected from abuse and cared for in a safe and inclusive environment. We also noted that people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. In addition, the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.
We found that the provider had taken action to address the identified concerns around record keeping so that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.
We arranged to speak with people who used the service and their relatives over the telephone. They told us that they were happy with the care and support that was provided by the service. Two people told us they were so pleased with the care that they would recommend the service to others.
People praised the staff who visited them and described them as 'Very helpful' 'Always very nice, always smiling' and 'Kind'. Comments included 'The staff do what I want them to' and 'The staff always go that extra mile to make sure I am ok'. The people we spoke with told us staff were on time and always stayed for the agreed amount of time.
People told us that they were visited by regular care staff who understood their needs. People said they were kept involved with their care. They confirmed that they had copies of their care plans at home and were involved in reviews of their care by the service.
People praised the communication from the main office and said that the service was 'Very efficient' and 'Accommodating'. One person explained 'The service is very accommodating'I have had to request an extra visit and they sorted this out very quickly'.