We carried out this announced inspection on 13 and 14 June 2018. Bluebird Care (Kensington and Chelsea) is a domiciliary care agency and a franchisee of Bluebird Care. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults.

At the time of our inspection this service was providing personal care to 60 people in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Not everyone using this service receives 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.

At our last inspection in August 2016 we rated this service ‘good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good’.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The provider had effective systems to assess people’s care needs and to plan their care in a way which met their needs. Care workers used an electronic system to record the care people needed and to demonstrate how they had provided this. Care plans were reviewed frequently as people’s needs changed. People had consented to their care and the provider made sure that people’s capacity was assessed and that care was delivered in people’s best interests.

People’s medicines were managed safely. This included assessing the support people required and operating an electronic record of medicines support. Records were checked regularly by managers to ensure that people received their medicines as planned. Where there were risks to people’s safety these were assessed by the provider and suitable mitigation plans were in place, including those relating to moving and handling needs. When incidents had taken place or complaints received, managers acted on these and investigated what had taken place, and were able to learn from when things had gone wrong.

The provider operated safer recruitment measures and carried out appropriate training and spot checks to ensure that care workers were suitable for their roles and had the right skills to care for people. Care workers arrived on time and managers used an electronic call monitoring system to protect people against missed and late visits.

People told us that they were treated with respect by care workers. There were measures in place to ensure that care workers understood how to promote people’s dignity and this was regularly checked by managers. Care workers were able to promote people’s health by observing when a person appeared unwell or in need of additional support and took the right action to address this.

The service took account of people’s cultural needs and provided the right information to care workers to ensure that these were met. People received support to make sure they had enough to eat in a way which met their cultural needs and their preferences. The provider had measures in place to protect people from the risk of dehydration.

People had regular reviews of their care and managers monitored people to make sure that they happy with the standard of care provided. Staff told us they received the right support from managers.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 11 and 12 August 2016. A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to staff recruitment.

We undertook this focused inspection on 5 January 2017 to check they had followed their plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bluebird Care (Kensington and Chelsea) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

At our previous inspection we found that the provider was not taking sufficient steps to ensure that staff were suitable for their roles. This was because they had not always obtained satisfactory references for staff prior to starting work. At this inspection we found that the provider were obtaining satisfactory references for new staff where possible, and had satisfactory systems of audit to ensure that the required information was held on staff files. The provider had revised their policies to ensure that where two references could not be obtained, they carried out a risk assessment to ensure that staff were fit for their roles.

This inspection took place on 11 and 12 August 2016 and was announced. This was the first inspection carried out for this location since it was registered in April 2014.

Bluebird Care (Kensington and Chelsea) is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care to people in their homes. This service is a franchisee of Bluebird Care run by MyCapers Ltd. At the time of this inspection there were 65 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager, who was on maternity leave at the time of this inspection. 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. The service was being run by the Director and Deputy Manager in her absence.

The provider had recently deployed an electronic care notes system. This helped ensure that staff had detailed and up to date information on people’s care needs, tasks which needed to be completed and medicines that people were taking. Using this system meant that care could be accurately recorded and monitored and audited in real time by managers, and relatives were also able to access this information. Care plans had detailed information about people’s life histories, living arrangements and needs and preferences, and this information was reviewed regularly. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were well recorded on plans, and staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink and recorded this in a way which could be easily followed by managers. There was evidence that appropriate consent was obtained to provide people’s care and support.

Staff undertook extensive training on joining the service, and were required to attend refresher training regularly. Training was carried out by a dedicated training manager and staff obtained the Skills for Care, Care Certificate as part of their induction. Staff knowledge and skills were assessed as part of their training. In addition, there were frequent observations of staff practice made by supervisors, who regularly checked that people were happy with their care. Staff were well supported by managers who kept the team informed through team meetings and newsletters.

Care was usually delivered punctually, and we saw that there were good levels of consistency, which allowed people and their care workers to get to know each other well. People praised their care workers and felt that staff were kind and helpful and treated them with dignity and respect. There were examples of staff going beyond what was required of them to meet people’s needs. There were detailed instructions on care plans to ensure that people’s dignity was upheld, and staff spoke of how they ensured this took place. Complaints were recorded and appropriately acted upon.

There were procedures in place to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people, including carrying out Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, and assessing staff suitability as part of their induction and probation. The provider was not always obtaining suitable references for staff. Plans were in place to ensure that risks to people’s health and wellbeing were appropriately managed.

We found one breach of regulations with regards to obtaining references for new staff. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.