Bluebird Care (Isle of Wight)

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service.

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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Managers and staff were passionate about delivering quality care and support and worked to promote a positive culture and good outcomes for people. Staff felt well supported by the management team; they felt listened to and able to raise concerns.

The manager was new to the role, and was currently going through the registered manager process with CQC to ensure the provider met their registration requirements. Although capable, willing to learn and regarded highly by the provider, they needed support to develop some additional knowledge, and experience to fulfil their role, such as when notification of incidents was required to CQC and undertaking effective quality monitoring. The provider told us they would rectify this during the assessment by taking action to submit the notifications.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The service had a management structure in place with defined roles and responsibilities. There were some arrangements in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. However, the system was not fully effective in identifying concerns, and where concerns had been identified they were not always actioned in a timely way. For example, the medicines audit did not identify where it took longer to follow up missed medicines, the training audit had not identified the lack of oversight of training. Shortfalls identified during an external audit that was completed in October 2024, as well as the provider’s quality improvement plan, had not all been addressed at the time of our assessment. This included missing information from staff files. There was not a robust system in place to ensure oversight of records relating to the care and treatment of people using the service contained up to date information and guidance. We found shortfalls in the availability of documents, internal audits and supporting evidence, however these were not all identified in the audit. We also found some documents were outside of their review date, whilst others were not dated, signed and detailed no evidence of any review. We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems and processes were not always operated effectively to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.