At the last inspection in January 2016, the service was rated 'Good'. At an earlier inspection in July 2014 the service was also meeting all the standards we inspected. At this inspection, we found the service remained 'Good' as the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated any risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

We undertook an announced inspection of Bluebird Care (Cambridge and South Cambs) between 5 and 9 July 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, younger adults, people living with dementia or mental health needs and people with sensory impairments. At the time of our inspection there were 58 people using the service.

Not everyone using Bluebird Care (Cambridge and South Cambs) receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

People’s care needs were exceeded by staff who were considerate and compassionate by understanding and acting upon people’s needs, no matter what these were. Staff knew the people they cared for well and promoted independence, privacy and dignity at every opportunity. People and their relatives were involved in the care and support provided. The provider focussed importance on matching staff to people taking into account their age, interests and background. This helped people to get on and develop positive relationships. Staff enabled people to retain their independence and they encouraged people to live fulfilling lives. Staff promoted people's well-being by encouraging people to remain as active as practicable. People were at the heart of the service.

The service continued to provide safe care as people were supported by staff who had been trained and were knowledgeable about safeguarding, undertaking risk assessments, medicines’ administration and infection prevention and control. A sufficient number of safely recruited staff provided people with care that met their needs. Lessons were learned and changes were made when things did not go as planned.

People were supported with their eating and drinking to achieve a healthy lifestyle where appropriate and assessed as a need. Staff enabled and supported people to access healthcare services when this was required. The registered manager and staff team worked with other organisations to help ensure that people's care was coordinated and person centred. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Concerns were responded to before in a positive way and any complaints were managed methodically and learned from. Staff worked well with other stakeholders to ensure that when people had a need for end of life care, this would be well managed to help ensure people could have a dignified death.

The registered manager led by example and fostered an open and honest culture within their staff team. Quality assurance, audit and governance systems continued to be effective in driving improvements. Staff were given the means to achieve their potential including regular support and training which was based on each staff member’s role. Staff were reminded of their responsibilities and this made a positive difference to the quality of people’s lives. People’s, relatives, staff’s and external stakeholders’ views influenced how the service was run. The registered manager and their staff team worked in harmony with other organisations.

Further informat

Bluebird Care (Cambridge and South Cambs) provides personal care to people who live in their own homes. There were 65 people using the service when we visited.

This announced inspection took place on 15 January 2016.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Before the inspection we looked at all of the information that we held about the service. This included information from notifications received by us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.

People’s health and personal needs were effectively met. Systems were in place to support people with the management of their medicines. People received their prescribed medicines appropriately.

Staff received training to protect people from harm and they were knowledgeable about reporting any suspected harm. There were a sufficient number of staff available and recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. Risk assessments were in place for people’s assessed risks and actions were taken to reduce these risks.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. People’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Staff were acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 so that people’s rights were being promoted.

The provider had procedures in place in relation to the application of the MCA. The registered manager and the staff were knowledgeable about these. They were aware of the circumstances they needed to be aware of if people’s mental capacity to make certain decisions about their care changed. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had received training regarding MCA and DoLS.

Staff were supported and received ongoing trained to do their job. The staff were in contact with a range of health care professionals to ensure that care and support was well coordinated. Health professionals we spoke with were complimentary and positive about the service. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that care and support could be safely provided.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their care and support was provided in a caring and a patient way.

A complaints procedure was in place and complaints had been responded to the satisfaction of the complainant. People felt able to raise concerns with the staff at any time.

The provider had quality assurance processes and procedures in place to monitor the quality and safety of people’s care. People and their relatives were able to make suggestions in relation to the support and care provided.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. We considered our findings to answer questions we always ask:

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with seven people who used the agency, three relatives and a healthcare professional who had regular contact with the agency. We also spoke with the provider, manager and six members of care staff. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included five people’s care plans, daily records, safeguarding procedures, staff recruitment records, quality assurance arrangements and the service’s complaints’ procedures.

This is a summary of what we found. If you would like to see the evidence that supports the summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people’s individual needs were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these. Care staff understood their roles and responsibilities in making sure people were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider was taking appropriate action to ensure that all care workers were kept up to date with safeguarding training. We saw that arrangements regarding Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessments were in place, where necessary, to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. There were effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure that only people who were suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. We saw that people’s needs had been assessed and their preferences regarding how they wished their care to be delivered had been recorded. Care plans were reviewed to ensure that information about people’s care and support needs remained up to date. People’s complaints were effectively responded to in a timely manner. The care staff we met were knowledgeable about people’s individual care and support needs.

Is the service caring?

People told us that they received consistent and respectful support from care staff and felt able to make choices and changes when required. Care staff told us that they felt well supported, so that they could provide safe care and support to people.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people’s personal care and support needs were assessed and met. This also included people’s individual choices and preferences as to how they wanted their care to be provided. People we spoke with told us that they could make changes to their support and had been involved in reviews. It was noted that changes to documentation were made to accurately reflect the support being provided to people by care staff.

Is the service well led?

The agency has a registered manager. People that we spoke with told us that they felt they were listened to and that their care and support was consistently and safely provided. Staff told us that they felt well supported by the manager and office based staff and felt there was regular training so that they had the skills and knowledge for their role. Quality assurance systems were in place to regularly audit the care and services it provided. Surveys were carried out to gather opinions from people using the service, relatives and staff to ensure that ongoing improvements could be made. There were effective arrangements in place so that people’s complaints were appropriately dealt with.