Bluebird Care (Stockport)

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around the quality and content of people's care records. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. The systems and processes in place did not always ensure people’s care plans were up to date which increased the risks to people of receiving inconsistent support. People's care records were not comprehensive and did not clearly identify if a pre-assessment had taken place, prior to people first receiving care from the provider. People told us they were involved in the assessment of their needs, however, one relative felt although care was reviewed, staff did not always follow up on any changes made to the support required. Care plans did not always identify if people had been involved in discussions about their care needs. The provider could not demonstrate how people's care was monitored and there was minimal evidence of lessons being learned and deficits in service provision being identified. Staff recognised the importance of understanding people's views and opinions. There was a process in place for staff to receive updates about people's care and support needs. Following the on-site inspection, the provider told us about a number of improvements made to ensure the service was more effective.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people told us they were involved in the assessment of their needs. One person told us, “We are all involved as a team when decisions are made, or care needs to be altered for one reason or another.” Another person said, ”Oh yes I was involved at the start.”

Staff told us they received regular updates about the people they supported. One staff member told us, ”We get notifications, all the time, the carer can message it through. There is a staff WhatsApp group; you get a constant picture of what is going on.” Another staff member said, “You can go through all of the information about a person on PASS system before you go out.” PASS is a cloud based platform that helps home care providers manage roster, invoicing and care planning.

People’s records did not clearly demonstrate assessments had taken place prior to the commencement of care; there were no records in place. We were informed this information was included in the ‘about me’ section, but this was not clear. Following our on-site assessment, the provider told us active steps were being taken to review peoples’ care plans and their care needs.

Most people told us they were involved in planning their own care, however, we received mixed feedback from relatives. One person said, “They [staff] have a book but I don’t get involved now; I was at first.” Another person told us, “I think there is a care plan but I’m not sure.” A relative commented, “The care plan is reviewed but they [staff] don’t stick to it so what’s the point.” Another relative stated, “We are fully involved in [person’s] care plan and it’s an ongoing project that we discuss daily.”

Staff told us they listened to people’s views and supported their choices. One staff member told us, “I know how people have it and how they like it. We know people’s routines, we know them well.” Another staff member said, “I know my clients inside and out. The customers and company mean a lot to me.”

People’s care plans did not always reflect their involvement in care. There were systems in place to ensure staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence, good practice and required standards, however, these systems were not always effective and followed up on to ensure they were implemented.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Most people told us they received care and support to enable them to lead lives they wanted to and their care was coordinated well. One person told us, ”I have trouble with walking and most of the time I make myself walk they [staff] stand by my side to steady me.” Another person said, “I always make choices, for example in what I want to eat or wear.” One relative stated, ”We do feel [person] is supported safely and care is taken to leave [them] comfortable.

Staff told us people’s views were important to them. One staff member told us how they support a person who’s first language was not English by using ‘google translate’ to enable them to communicate effectively. The staff member said, “We use google translate as [person] has an iPad. [Person] starts laughing when we do it through google translate.” The provider had recently sent out survey forms to people to gather their views. We saw historical feedback received by the provider had been positive. Following our on-site inspection, the provider told us they were in the process of analysing customer satisfaction surveys sent to people, as a result of our feedback.

There was very little evidence of people’s care and outcomes being monitored and any actions and learning being undertaken when any shortfalls were identified.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.