About the service:

Bluebird Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides services to younger and older adults, people with learning disabilities, people with physical disabilities and complex health needs. At the time of inspection 87 people were receiving support.

People’s experience of using this service:

People who used the service and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s healthcare needs were being met and medicines were being managed safely.

People were protected against avoidable harm, abuse, neglect and discrimination. The care they received was safe.

Care plans were up to date and detailed what care and support people wanted and needed. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate identified risks.

People's likes, preferences and dislikes were assessed, and care packages met people's desired

expectations.

Staff were being recruited safely and there were enough staff to take care of people. Staff were receiving appropriate training and they told us the training was good and relevant to their role. Staff were supported by the registered manager and were receiving formal supervision where they could discuss their ongoing development needs.

There was a complaints procedure and people knew how to complain.

Everyone spoke highly of the registered manager who they said was approachable and supportive. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and where issues were identified, they acted to make improvements.

The provider and registered manager understood the regulatory requirements and monitored the quality and safety of the service on a regular basis. Some improvement was needed to ensure CQC were informed of all notifications required under legislation.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated Good, the report was published November 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

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

There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our inspection was discussed and arranged with the registered provider three days in advance. This was to ensure we had time to visit and contact people who used the service and speak with the registered provider, registered manager and staff.

We received lots of positive feedback about the service. The majority of people spoken with told us they were satisfied with the service they were provided with.

People who used the service and their relatives spoke highly about the staff, particularly the care workers. We found people had developed positive and caring relationships with their regular care workers.

Comments from people who used the service and their relatives included, “They [care workers] are all lovely. There are no bad ones. They are marvellous” and “Lovely people. I look forward to seeing them.”

The care workers were described as, “Fantastic” and “Angels.” One person told us, “They do listen and respond, they do their best.”

The main issues for some people who used the service and their relatives was the lack of continuity with regular staff, and the timing of visits varying.

Some people who used the service felt communication between the office staff and themselves needed improvement. Although care workers said they felt there was a very good system and network of communication between themselves and the office staff.

Missed visits were not an issue and people told us they had never had any missed visits. However people who used the service wanted to be contacted if care workers were going to be late as this did not always happen.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and staff had received training in safeguarding people from abuse. They understood how to protect people from avoidable harm and how to report their concerns.

People's care plans contained consistent up to date information about their care and support including risk assessments and action plans. These were regularly reviewed and updated in line with the person's changing needs.

We found policies and procedures for the safe handling of medicines. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. There were systems in place to ensure care workers were

competent in the administering of medicines.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and we saw the registered provider and registered manager followed and worked within the principles of the Act.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns. Where people had expressed concerns, appropriate action had been taken.

The registered provider and registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot checks and care reviews. We found the majority of people were satisfied with the service they received.

During our inspection visit we spoke with the two directors, the manager and a care supervisor about the running and management of the agency. Three care workers came to the office so that we could talk to them about working for Bluebird Care (Sheffield South.)

In addition, we spoke over the telephone to a further care supervisor, a trainer and 13 care staff about Bluebird Care (Sheffield South.)

We telephoned 27 people supported by Bluebird Care [Sheffield South] and spoke with 23 people using the service, or their relative about the support provided. They told us that they were happy with the agency. Their comments included, “They do a really good job. I don’t think there is another like them,” “They are reliable, very good” and “I am highly delighted. I can’t praise them enough. The carers are kind and thoughtful.”

We found that before people received any care and support they were asked for their opinion and agreement to ensure that staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

We found that people's care and support needs were assessed and each person had a written care plan that set out their identified needs and the actions required of staff to meet these.

We found that policies were in place to ensure medicines were handled safely.

The provider had a satisfactory recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were appropriately employed.

The provider had an effective complaints system available.

We carried out a routine/scheduled inspection of this service. We visited the office and

spoke to the provider, acting manager and other senior staff. Care workers also came to the office to meet with us. From the office we contacted people that received a service from this agency and also spoke to some relatives of people that received a service and professionals that were involved with the service. We asked people about their experiences of the support they receive from the service.

We spoke with six people who received a service from this agency over the telephone.

Everyone spoke positively about their care workers and felt that they fully supported their care needs. Without exception, people said that all their care workers spoke with them in a in a calm and respectful way. All six people we spoke with told us that their care was personalised to their needs. In all cases, people were happy with their care workers and said that the care workers adapted very well when changes were made to the care they required.

We spoke with one relative of a person that received care. They confirmed they had been involved in discussing and reviewing the care of their loved one with a supervisor from the agency. People receiving care said they were also involved in making decisions about their support needs. One person said, "I have a care plan that states exactly what my wishes and needs are and it's regularly updated."

People and their relatives felt that staff were well trained and understood their needs. One person told us "My regular care workers do everything just as I like it, they know how I like things to be and make sure things are done this way."

People told us that they felt safe, and if they had concerns they would speak with a family member, friend or somebody from the office.

We also spoke to two professionals that were involved with the service. One told us they were "very impressed with the quality of people's care and support." The other person said "The staff are very upfront and honest. The staff are very good at following up any concerns or issues without being alarmist." Both professionals said that there was very good communication and contact between themselves and the service.