Bluebird Care (Stockport)

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around processes and procedures in place to support the delivery of person-centred care. The provider had not done everything reasonably practicable to ensure people received person-centred care, which was appropriate, and reflected their personal preferences. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. Staff training was not always up to date. There was no evidence of people's needs being assessed by the provider before they started receiving care, including people's communication needs, and no evidence of care plans being regularly reviewed. However, people and relatives told us they felt staff provided people with personalised care, which most people and relatives felt was meeting their needs. Staff told us they used technology to support people's communication needs. Most people told us they knew how to provide feedback, however, feedback provided was not always followed up by staff and there was no evidence of provider oversight regarding feedback provided, including complaints made. Staff told us knew who to contact if they had any concerns. Following the on-site inspection, the provider told us about a number of improvements made to processes to support person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they received care that met their individual needs, and were included in the decision-making process. 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.” However one relative commented, “[Person’s] legs have cellulitis, and they [staff] didn’t even notice and then had no idea what to do or who to call.” People’s care plans were not consistently person-centred; the initial information contained generic details which could be misleading. For example, continence care plans for one person listed stomas and catheter care but the person receiving care did not use these aids. Care notes completed by staff during care visits were detailed and demonstrated people were supported with compassion.

Staff knew people they were supporting well. One staff member told us, "We know people’s routines and we know people well.” Another staff member said, ”I see the same people regularly; there isn’t a person up there I don’t know well.”

Most people told us they received care which met their needs. One person told us, ”We have a routine now and we have a care and support plan.” A relative said, ”At first [person] had male and female carers and we didn’t want that; now there are no male carers.”

One staff member told us how they supported a person by finding out how the person wished to be supported by using google translate. We also saw evidence of pictorial aids being used to support communication with another person.

We received very little feedback regarding the provider’s partnership working and how this was being supported.

There were processes and procedures in place to support the delivery of person centred care to ensure care was tailored to meet people’s needs. However, these processes had not always been effective. For example staff training was not always up to date and people’s care plans were not always person-centred and personalised to people’s care needs. There was no evidence the provider conducted assessments of people’s needs at the start of the service delivery or frequently reviewed and evaluated them. Following our on-site assessment, staff training had been reviewed. The provider told us staff were to receive regular checks on their competencies and people's care plans were in the process of being reviewed.

People were provided with clear and transparent information regarding the service delivered by the provider. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. The provider had a good understanding of the Accessible Information Standard but there was little evidence of the positive impact on people. For example one person used google translate to communicate with staff, however, there was no evidence of any other documents or information being presented in a form the person would understand. This posed a risk of the person being unable participate in the decision-making process or raise questions about their care plan and support provided.

Staff told us they supported people’s communication needs by using technology such as google translate or visual aids such as pictures.

There were processes and procedures in place to support people with receiving information in a way they could understand. However these were not always effective or fully utilized. For example there was no evidence that people’s communication needs were assessed at the start of the service and there was no evidence of initial assessments being completed. There were no risk assessments in place for people who were new to the service.

Most people knew how to give feedback about their experience of care and support including how to raise issues or concerns. One person told us, ”If I don’t like something I will let them [staff] know.” Another person said, “Yes, I I know who to contact’ there is a young man called [name] I can talk to him.” Another person told us, “Yes, I have all the numbers and contacts I need thank you.” However, one relative stated, “Someone [staff member] was supposed to come out and see us to discuss timings, but so far no one has bothered to come out.” Another relative said, ”Somebody had written down our concerns and said they would help, but we had nothing back about it.”

There were some evidence of people’s feedback being gathered and staff had a good understanding of the importance of this. However, there was no evidence feedback gathered was assessed or reviewed regularly. The provider contacted people to seek their feedback during this on-site assessment. There was no evidence of provider oversight of people’s gathered views. Staff knew who to contact if they had any concerns or issues. One staff member told us, “If I was feeling uncertain I would speak to the office; everyone is very approachable.”

There were processes in place to support gathering people’s voices and feedback. However, these were not effective. Despite people raising concerns there was no evidence how these were managed, reviewed, resolved and if any lessons learnt were identified. Most written feedback received from people was received at the time of this assessment was being conducted. There was no evidence that people’s feedback is frequently sough, reviewed, analysed and that any learnings are identified. There was no evidence people’s feedback was frequently sought, reviewed and analysed. There was no provider’s oversight in regard to this. Following our on-site assessment the provider told us they were in the process of analysing feedback received from people, as a result of our feedback.

People were supported to access care, support and treatment when needed. However people’s feedback had not always been frequently sought after, analysed and used to improve people’s outcomes.

People’s feedback was not always frequently sought, received, analysed and used to improve outcomes for people. People were not always encouraged to provide feedback about their experiences of the care provided. Opportunities to improve care standards based on people's feedback had been missed.

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