About the service:

The service is based in the London Borough of Havering. The service provided personal care to adults living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 48 adults used the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People and their relatives thought the care provided from the service was safe. One person told us, “I do feel safe. I am very, very happy with them (service). If it wasn’t for the carers I couldn’t live here. They make me feel very comfortable in my own home.”

• The service worked with local communities and organisations to support people with activities at no additional cost to people.

• Care plans were person centred and detailed people’s support needs. Relatives were also able to access care plans remotely to view tasks carried out by staff and check if staff had attended calls.

• Risks associated with people’s needs had been assessed. However, further improvements were needed with risk assessments. We made a recommendation in this area.

• Systems were in place to ensure people received care in a timely manner.

• Medicines were being managed safely.

• Systems were in place to ensure staff attended calls and pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable for the role.

• Staff had the knowledge and received the support they required to meet people’s individual needs.

• People received care from staff who were kind and compassionate.

• Staff understood people’s needs, preferences, and what was important to them.

• People’s independence was promoted and their privacy and dignity was respected.

• Complaints were managed appropriately.

• People and staff were positive about the management and the service. There was a quality assurance system in place to identify shortfalls and take action to ensure people were safe.

• The service met the characteristics for a rating of ‘Good’. Therefore, our overall rating for the service after this inspection was ‘Good’.

• For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

• At the last inspection on 15 November 2016 the service was rated ‘Good’. The report was published on 22 December 2016.

Why we inspected:

• This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection.

Follow up:

• We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

This announced inspection took place on 15 November 2016. At our last inspection in June 2014, we found that the provider met all the areas we inspected.

Bluebird Care (Havering) is a domiciliary care service based in London Borough of Havering. The service is registered to provide personal care for people in their own home. At the time of our inspection, the service provided a service to 65 people, who received personal care and support in their own homes.

The service had 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 care homes, 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 service had introduced a new electronic based system of recording care plans, risk assessments and all information related to the support provided to people. Although this system may have potential advantages of ensuring care was effectively provided, some people did not find it suitable for their needs. Also, even though people were happy with the staff, some people told us that staff did not always arrive on time. We made recommendations about these issues.

People and relatives told us that people were safe in the service. They told us staff were pleasant and treated them with respect and dignity. We found staff were experienced and had the knowledge to ensure people’s privacy was upheld.

Staff had an understanding of people's needs and demonstrated that they had knowledge adult safeguarding to ensure people were protected from different kinds of abuse. Each person had a risk assessment which identified possible risks and provided guidance for staff regarding how to manage the risks. Staff had training to prompt or administer medicines as stated in people's care plans.

There were robust staff recruitment processes in place to ensure new staff were checked appropriately and were suitable to support people. The service had sufficient numbers of staff.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and were involved in their assessments and care plans. We noted staff listened to people and the service sought people and other stakeholders' views to improve the service. People were confident that their complaints were taken seriously and investigated by the registered manager. The service's management structure ensured that there was an on-call system to provide management support at all times.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? During the inspection we spoke with three people who used the service and one relative. We spoke with the registered manager, the staff supervisor and two care staff. We reviewed the care records for four people and reviewed a selection of other records, including training schedules and policies and procedures.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us that they were treated well by staff. One of them stated, "I feel very safe with the carers. I am really well looked after." Another person who used the service wrote an email that said, "You are by far the best agency I have had."

Risk assessments of people had been documented in their care records together with guidance on action to take to protect people. There was documented evidence that staff had been provided with essential training to enable them to care for people safely.

Staff received training and guidance regarding the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

Is the service effective?

Feedback from people who used the service and from correspondence received from relatives and those involved in their care indicated that the service was effective and responsive to the needs of people. One person said, "The carers are well trained for what I need." People's care needs had been assessed with the help of their relatives and representatives. One relative said, "We are involved all the time. Nothing is too much trouble." People's choices and preferences were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of these. This enabled staff to respond effectively when caring for people. Care plans had been prepared in detail and were up to date and reviewed regularly. This meant the needs of people could be met with up to date information.

Is the service caring?

We saw correspondence and feedback from relatives of people supported by Bluebird Care which complimented staff for being caring towards people. One person said, "The care is excellent." A relative wrote, "We want to express our heartfelt appreciation for your staff's extraordinary efforts to assist us in a difficult time." All staff said they were aware that all people who used the service should be treated with respect and dignity.

Is the service responsive?

People informed us that staff were attentive and responded promptly when people had any concerns. The registered manager informed us the provision of services and care was regularly reviewed and if there were problems or suggestions made, they would respond. This included providing specific carer workers who got on well with certain people and informing people if care workers were going to be late. We saw a comment from one person who used the service which said, "Thank you for finding a male carer for me." When we needed information regarding the care provided and the management of the service, this was promptly provided.

Is the service well-led?

The registered manager and the staff supervisor who were present during the inspection were knowledgeable regarding their roles and responsibilities. There were arrangements for monitoring the quality of care provided. A staff satisfaction survey had been carried out recently. The results indicated staff felt supported and were satisfied with the management of the service.