The inspection took place on 19 June and was announced. The inspection continued on 21 June 2018 and was announced.

Bluebird Care Ferndown provides domiciliary support services and 24 hour care to people in their own homes. The agency provides care and support to older people and people diagnosed with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 53 people receiving personal care from the service. There was a central office base in Ferndown.

Not everyone using Bluebird Care Ferndown received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Risk assessments formed part of people’s care and support plans however risk management systems were not always clearly written, some measures were not always reflected to reduce the risk to people.

People’s care and support plans were not personalised and did not give staff a clear picture of how to support people to meet their assessed needs or reflect their preferences. Care plans did not fully reflect people’s preferred support needs in relation to information being made accessible to them or how best to support them with communication. Although Bluebird Care Ferndown does not have publicly funded people using their service and doesn’t need to meet the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), they are using it as a model to improve reasonable adjustments for people who have information and communication needs.

Although the service had quality monitoring systems in place these were not always robust or effective. The audit tools used did not allow the auditors to add details or actions required to improve where necessary.

The registered manager accepted that improvements were needed and following the inspection provided us with an action plan detailing areas of improvement and actions they were taking to drive this.

People and staff told us that they felt the service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received training in safeguarding adults.

Medicines were managed safely, securely stored in people’s homes, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s support needs and received regular training as well as training specific to their roles for example, nutrition and dementia.

Staff received regular supervisions and annual appraisals which were carried out by the registered manager.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and training records showed that they had received training in this. Consent to care was sought and people’s capacity was assessed when necessary and best interest decisions made as appropriate.

People were supported to eat and drink enough whilst maintaining a healthy diet. Food and fluid intake was recorded for those who were under monitoring for this.

People were supported to access healthcare services. We were told that health professionals visit people in their homes and that on occasions staff would support people to outpatient appointments.

People told us that staff were caring. During home visits we observed positive interactions between the staff and people. People said they felt comfortable with staff supporting them. People said that staff treated them in a dignified manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes, interests and communication needs although these were not clearly recorded in people’s plans. This m