Bluebird Care (Isle of Wight)

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Staff knew how to identify, and report concerns to safeguard people from abuse. The service had shared concerns with the local safeguarding team, investigated appropriately and put plans in place to keep people safe. However, safeguarding incidents had not always been notified to CQC as required. The provider took action during the inspection to address this concern.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Risks related to people’s care were assessed and people told us staff effectively managed risks related to their care and the support they received was safe. Information captured in people’s care plans identified steps for staff to follow to help keep people safe. This included risks relating to people’s home environment. Although risk assessments had been completed, records did not show when care plans had been reviewed or updated. For example, one care plan had information about moving and handling equipment, but the person did not have or used this equipment. This meant information in people’s care plans might not be up to date and reflective of people’s current needs. People’s care visits were monitored to ensure they received their care. Out of hours cover, business continuity plans and a non-entry policy were in place to support staff to escalate concerns.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service made sure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs promptly. Pre-employment checks were completed. Staff had received supervision and told us they received sufficient support to undertake their roles. The provider told us staff had received training to meet people’s needs and reduce risks. However, staff recruitment and training records were not sufficiently comprehensive to support the provider to effectively monitor whether their policies had been followed.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People mostly received their routine medicines as prescribed from appropriately trained staff. When medicines had been missed a system was in place to determine the reason for this and ensure people did not come to harm as a result. However, action had not always been taken promptly to follow up missed doses and records did not always show the action staff told us had been taken.