This inspection took place on the 25 and 27 January 2017 and was announced. During our last inspection in May 2015 we rated the service as ‘good’.

Bluebird Care (Luton) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 88 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service were kept safe from risk of harm and staff understood the ways in which they could be safeguarded from abuse. Risk assessments were detailed enough to minimise any risk to each person and to account for risks of working in people’s homes. Care plans contained sufficient information to ensure that people’s needs were being met where necessary, including their dietary and healthcare needs. Satisfaction surveys were sent out to ensure that people were happy with the care they received, and improvements were made on the basis of people’s feedback.

Staff received the correct training to undertake their duties effectively, and received supervisions and performance reviews to support their continued development. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were knowledgeable about the ways in which people gave consent and how the Mental Capacity Act was applied in practice. Staff demonstrated a caring attitude and understood how to treat people with dignity and respect. Staff meetings were held regularly and provided an opportunity for the team to meet and discuss issues affecting the service. New staff received a full induction into the service, and robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure they had the skills and experience necessary for the role.

People’s backgrounds, social histories, preferences and cultural needs were included in their care plans and they were involved in reviews and meetings about issues relating to their care. Where people required support with administration of their medicines, the service kept appropriate records and information on their file. Quality audits were completed regularly to ensure that the service was identifying any areas for improvement and taking appropriate action to resolve them. People and staff were positive about the registered manager and management team within the service and shared their visions and values. People knew who to complain to if necessary, and the manager had an effective system in place for handling and resolving complaints.

We undertook an announced inspection of Bluebird Care (Luton) on 08 May 2015. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be carrying out the inspection. Bluebird Care (Luton) is a care agency that provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection approximately 53 people were receiving support or personal care from the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed and allocated to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service. People were supported by staff who had been trained to support them safely.

Staff received regular training and supervision and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people well and were able to provide a personalised service to the people they supported and built good working relationships.

People and their relatives were able to speak with the provider if they had any concerns and staff were kind and caring towards the people that they supported.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support, and support plans were in place which provided details on how to support them.

Risk assessments were in place for all people receiving support and were reviewed regularly.

People were supported to eat and drink well and to access healthcare professionals when required.

The manager was accessible and approachable. Staff, people who used the service and relatives felt able to speak with the manager and provide feedback on the service. The provider carried out regular spot checks on the service being provided and staff performance.

Medication was administered by staff who had received training and were competent in the safe administration of medication.

During our inspection of Bluebird Care (Luton) on 28 June 2013, we identified non-compliance regarding the recruitment of staff. We found that the systems in place did not demonstrate that adequate measures had been used to protect vulnerable people using the service, when new staff had been recruited.

We imposed compliance actions with regards to this identified issue and told the provider they needed to make improvements in this area.

The provider submitted an action plan, which stated that all staff files now contained all the information specified in Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. They told us they had implemented a number of new auditing tools to support the provider with ensuring that standards were complied with. On 4 September 2013 we carried out an unannounced inspection to check that these actions had been embedded.

When we inspected Bluebird Care (Luton) on 29 October 2012, they were providing care packages to approximately 43 people in their own homes. We spoke with six people who used the service and their relatives, and found that they were satisfied and happy with the care and support they received. One person said "They're all marvellous to me. They are all really caring."

We noted from the care files that we looked at, that people were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and ensured that their individual needs were met. People told us that the staff were respectful in their approach and were skilled and competent in their roles. One person told us, "I have no complaints. They do what they are meant to do."

We could see from records that people were encouraged to express their views and were involved in planning their care and making decisions about their care and support. The provider welcomed suggestions from people which could improve the service they provided. People told us that they felt able to approach the manager to discuss anything, and they were confident that swift action would be taken to resolve any issues they had.

The time management of staff who worked for this provider, was monitored through a system called CM2000. This helped to make sure people's visits were punctual and in line with their care package agreement.

This inspection of Bluebird care (Luton) was carried out in response to information of concern received by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The information alleged that there were individuals working within the service that may be unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.

As part of our inspection we spoke with two people who used the service and relatives of five other people who used the service. We also spoke to four members of staff, including the registered manager. We found that people were very satisfied with the care and support they received.

People that we spoke with told us they were very satisfied with the staff. They told us they felt staff respected their privacy and dignity. They told us that they, or their relatives were receiving a safe effective and high quality service. One relative said, “They do the tasks they are supposed to do, my(relative) is very happy with them”.

We found that there was an effective quality monitoring system in place and complaints were fully investigated and resolved where possible to the person’s satisfaction.

However, we found concerns with the recruitment and selection procedures in place. These did not demonstrate that adequate measures had been put in place to protect vulnerable people using the service, when new staff had been recruited.