We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird Care (Swale) 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 (Swale), you can give feedback on this service.
Bluebird Care (Swale) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 66 people using the service. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing support with personal care to 63 people with a range of needs such as older people, people with a learning disability and physically disabilities.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People we spoke with told us they all felt happy with the service provided from Bluebird Care (Swale). Feedback included, “I feel very safe with them here, [staff] look after me very well and they are very thoughtful.” and, “I’m really pleased with my service. I had it recommended to me and I would happily recommend to others, the carers are exceptional.”
Staff told us, “I love working for Bluebird. I’ve never worked in care before, but I can see myself doing this job for years and I wouldn’t want to do it for anyone else.” Staff fed back to us they were supported in their role by the registered manager and the office staff. They felt appropriately trained for their role and rewarded for working hard.
People had individual care plans and risk assessments that were tailored to their specific care and support needs. These care plans had been regularly reviewed and updated as required and people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Risks to people and staff had been identified and were recorded in detail to keep people safe. Staff had been through an appropriate recruitment process and there were appropriate numbers to assist people with their assessed care needs. People told us that their care visits were planned, and care staff arrived at the time they expected. Staff stayed for the durations to ensure people were well supported.
Systems and processes in place were relevant and appropriate and enabled the registered manager and head of care to have oversight of the quality of support being provided. There was an open approach to learning lessons from things which may have gone wrong and these were communicated to staff to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.
Based on our review of the safe and well led key questions the service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture.
Right support:
•People’s care and support maximised people’s choice, control and independence
Right care:
• Care was person-centred and promoted people’s dignity, privacy and human rights
Right culture:
• The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of the registered manager, senior staff and care staff ensured people using the service led confident, inclusive and empowered lives
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 good (published 12 May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Bluebird Care (Ashford and Swale) is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 42 people. Visits were a minimum of 30 minutes and the frequency of visits varied depending on people's individual needs.
The provider was also the registered manager of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the agency. 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 agency is run. The registered manager was supported by a team of staff in the registered manager or care supervisors including care supervisors, to plan and oversee the care provided.
People, their relatives and other stakeholders told us that Bluebird Care provided good care for people. People were supported by staff and management who were committed to people being in control of their own lives and care. They told us the registered manager and office staff were approachable.
Staff were supported and trained and had the skills they needed to support people. Staff were recruited safely and were asked questions related to the values of the service to help recruit the right staff. Staff said they felt supported and confident in their roles. The registered manager or care supervisors staff supported people so they knew them and could step in to cover any shortfalls like sickness. Staff were regularly given feedback to improve their performance or recognise their achievements.
There were enough staff to cover all the calls and meet people’s needs. Staff were on time for visits, most people said they did not feel rushed. One relative told us staff did not always stay their allocated time, they had spoken to the registered manager or care supervisors and this had improved but on occasions it had ‘slipped’ again. People told us staff were ‘kind and caring, often going above and beyond what was expected.’ Staff treated the people they supported and their families with dignity and respect, always remembering they were in someone else’s home.
People told us they had built positive relationships with staff. Staff used their knowledge of people to encourage them to stay well and remain independent. People were left snacks or drinks they liked to encourage them to eat and drink. If staff were concerned about people’s health or weight, they contacted the registered manager or care supervisors who would speak to the person’s family or make a referral for support. Relatives told us this prompt response to health needs had enabled their family members to stay in their own home which was their wish.
People had care plans which were developed by them, and were based on their preferences. The care plans were detailed and gave staff the information they needed to provide people’s care. People chose the times of their calls and the staff worked around this so that everyone had a call at a time that suited them.
Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. The provider had effective systems in place to investigate and report any safeguarding concerns. Risks to people and staff had been thoroughly assessed and action taken to mitigate them when necessary. Staff informed the registered manager or care supervisors if there was any change in the risks related to people and risk assessments were updated.
Trained staff supported people with their medicines, including people as much as possible. Staff had up to date knowledge on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They supported people to make their own choices. People signed their care plans, giving consent to their care when appropriate.
The provider regularly checked the quality of care given to people through surveys, spot checks and quality assurance visits. Positive feedback was passed on to the staff through team meetings or one to one supervision meetings. The service was a franchise branch of a national company and was audited six monthly by the head office and improvements had been noted.
The service had a complaints policy in place, people and their relatives they knew who to complain to. Most people told us that their complaints were dealt with, but a small number of people felt that their complaint had not been responded to appropriately or the issues had reoccurred.