About the service: Bluebird Care (Rushcliffe & Melton) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It currently provides a service to older adults. At the time of the inspection, 56 people were receiving support with personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

• The risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and used to reduce the risks to their safety. People felt safe when staff supported them. Staff understood how to report any concerns that could lead to people experiencing avoidable harm.

• Staff arrived on time for each call. They completed all required tasks. People’s medicines were managed safely.

• People felt staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. There were clear processes in place for continued learning to ensure people received safe care and support.

• People were provided with care and support which protected them from discrimination. Staff were well trained and had their competency to carry out their role regularly assessed. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

• People received the support they needed with their meals and they had access to other health and social care agencies where needed. People were supported to make decisions about their care; the provider ensured these were made in accordance with appropriate legislation.

• People praised the approach of the staff and they looked forward to their visits. People were treated with dignity and respect and people found staff to be kind and caring. People were supported to make decisions about their care needs and staff respected their wishes. People’s records were stored securely to protect their privacy.

• People received person-centred care and support that considered their personal choices and preferences. Staff had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs. People could make choices about their care and records were amended to reflect those choices. People had access to information in a format they could understand. Complaints were handled appropriately and in-line with the provider’s complaints policy. People did not currently receive end of life care.

• Since our last inspection the provider had introduced a variety of new initiatives which were designed to continually monitor, assess and improve the quality of the care people received. These had started to take fruition at the time of the inspection. People were overwhelmingly pleased with the support provided and praised the personal approach of the staff, the registered manager and the provider. Staff had a thorough understanding of people’s needs. They enjoyed their role and welcomed the supportive working environment. Innovation was encouraged, people’s views were welcomed and valued. All people and relatives told us they would recommend this service to others.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated as Good (May 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to review information we receive about the service until the next scheduled inspection. If we receive any information of concern we may inspect sooner than scheduled.

This inspection was announced and took place on 13 and 14 April 2016. Bluebird Care (Rushcliffe and Melton) is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support to adults, in their own homes, in Nottinghamshire. On the day of our inspection 69 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our 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.

People were kept safe by staff who understood their responsibilities with regard to protecting people they were caring for from harm or abuse.

People were being cared for by sufficient numbers of staff. People received the required support with medicines and they were managed safely.

People were cared for by staff who received the training and support they required to carry out their roles effectively.

People were encouraged to make independent decisions. Staff had received training and understood the principles of legislation designed to protect the rights of people who lacked capacity. We found during our inspection that capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always documented and this was rectified by the registered manager following our visit.

People received the support they required to meet their nutritional and healthcare needs.

People had positive relationships with their care workers. People and their relatives felt that their relation was treated with kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected.

People, who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to contribute to the planning of their care and to give their views on the running of the service.

People told us that they were not always kept informed of changes to their care calls and expressed concern about the system used to deploy staff. The registered manager introduced a new monitoring system for late calls following our visit.

People were supported with their independence and to maintain their interests. People’s care plans did not always contain sufficient guidance for staff but we found staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs.

People were provided with information about how to make a complaint and complaints were responded to appropriately.

People, or their representatives, were encouraged to provide feedback on the service. Staff felt supported and motivated by the management team to provide a high quality service to people.

The registered manager and the provider had a good understanding of effective quality assurance systems. There were processes in place to monitor quality to drive improvements within the service.