Bluebird Care (Richmond & Twickenham)

Updated 16 May 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service over 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity began on 25 February 2020 and ended on 30 March 2020. We visited the office location on 26 and 28 February 2020.

What we did before the inspection

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We also checked notifications made to us by the provider, safeguarding alerts raised regarding people living at the home and information we held on our database about the service and provider. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We spoke in person with the registered manager and field supervisors. We contacted 18 people and their relatives, 15 staff and two health care professionals, to get their experience and views about the care provided. We looked at the personal care and support plans for twelve people and ten staff files.

After the inspection

We requested additional evidence to be sent to us after our inspection. This included training matrix, and audits. We received the information which was used as part of our inspection.

Updated 16 May 2020

Bluebird Care (Richmond and Twickenham) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to 170 people living in their own homes at the time of the inspection.

155 people using the service were receiving personal care. 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The agency culture was very open, honest and positive with transparent leadership and management. Its vision and values were clearly defined, understood by staff and followed. Areas of responsibility and accountability were identified, staff understood them and were prepared to accept responsibility on the ground and report any concerns they may have to the management, in a timely way. Service quality was constantly reviewed, and the agency made real changes to continually improve the care and support people received. This was in a way that best suited them. This included continually updating IT systems that enabled the agency to run more smoothly and improve people’s experience of it. Thorough audits were carried out, records kept up to date and performance shortfalls identified and acted upon. The agency played a prominent role in the community through well-established working partnerships that promoted people’s participation and minimised social isolation. Registration requirements were met.

The service the agency provided was safe for people to use and staff to work in. People were enabled to live safely by the support they received from the agency and its staff, because risks to people were assessed and monitored. Safeguarding concerns and accidents and incidents were reported, investigated and recorded, by the agency. Enough appropriately recruited staff were available to meet people’s needs. Medicines were safely administered; by staff who were trained and competent to do so.

People and their relatives said they were not discriminated against and their equality and diversity needs were met. The staff were very well-trained, supervised, and appraised. The induction for new staff included valuable input from people using the service in person. People and their relatives praised the way staff provided care and conducted themselves, which more than met their needs and expectations. People said staff spoke to them clearly, and in a way and at a pace that they understood and explained things to them and their choices and options. Relatives said that regarding people with dementia, staff were very patient and repeated information as many times as was required for them to understand.

Staff encouraged people to discuss their health needs and these were passed on to other community-based health care professionals, if appropriate. The agency had cultivated and developed a professional’s network that enabled seamless joined up working between services based on people’s needs, wishes and best interests. This included any required transitioning as people’s needs changed and interaction within the local community to reduce social isolation.

People were protected, by staff, from nutrition and hydration risks, and were encouraged to choose healthy and balanced diets that also met their likes, dislikes and preferences. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People and their relatives were very complimentary about the way staff provided them with care and support, particularly field staff, with attention to small details making all the difference. People’s rights to privacy, dignity and confidentiality were respected by staff. They were encouraged and supported to be independent and do the things, they could, for themselves. This promoted their self-worth and improved their quality of life. The agency provided staff who were very friendly, caring, and compassionate. They were also passionate about the people they provided a service for and the way they provided it.

People received person centred care and had their needs assessed and reviewed. They were supported to follow their routines, interests and hobbies, and reminded of their choices. People were provided with suitable information to make their own decisions and end of life wishes were identified, if appropriate and adhered to. Complaints were recorded and investigated.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 22 August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection.

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.