The inspection took place on 12 May 2017 and was announced.

Bluebird Care (Ashford and Swale) is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 42 people. Visits were a minimum of 30 minutes and the frequency of visits varied depending on people's individual needs.

The provider was also the registered manager of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the agency. 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 agency is run. The registered manager was supported by a team of staff in the registered manager or care supervisors including care supervisors, to plan and oversee the care provided.

People, their relatives and other stakeholders told us that Bluebird Care provided good care for people. People were supported by staff and management who were committed to people being in control of their own lives and care. They told us the registered manager and office staff were approachable.

Staff were supported and trained and had the skills they needed to support people. Staff were recruited safely and were asked questions related to the values of the service to help recruit the right staff. Staff said they felt supported and confident in their roles. The registered manager or care supervisors staff supported people so they knew them and could step in to cover any shortfalls like sickness. Staff were regularly given feedback to improve their performance or recognise their achievements.

There were enough staff to cover all the calls and meet people’s needs. Staff were on time for visits, most people said they did not feel rushed. One relative told us staff did not always stay their allocated time, they had spoken to the registered manager or care supervisors and this had improved but on occasions it had ‘slipped’ again. People told us staff were ‘kind and caring, often going above and beyond what was expected.’ Staff treated the people they supported and their families with dignity and respect, always remembering they were in someone else’s home.

People told us they had built positive relationships with staff. Staff used their knowledge of people to encourage them to stay well and remain independent. People were left snacks or drinks they liked to encourage them to eat and drink. If staff were concerned about people’s health or weight, they contacted the registered manager or care supervisors who would speak to the person’s family or make a referral for support. Relatives told us this prompt response to health needs had enabled their family members to stay in their own home which was their wish.

People had care plans which were developed by them, and were based on their preferences. The care plans were detailed and gave staff the information they needed to provide people’s care. People chose the times of their calls and the staff worked around this so that everyone had a call at a time that suited them.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. The provider had effective systems in place to investigate and report any safeguarding concerns. Risks to people and staff had been thoroughly assessed and action taken to mitigate them when necessary. Staff informed the registered manager or care supervisors if there was any change in the risks related to people and risk assessments were updated.

Trained staff supported people with their medicines, including people as much as possible. Staff had up to date knowledge on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They supported people to make their own choices. People signed their care plans, giving consent to their care when appropriate.

The provider regularly checked the quality of care