This targeted inspection of Bluebird Care, Newmarket and Fenland was prompted by concerns about staffing levels and visit timing; no evidence of risk to people was found. The service was inspected but not rated, with the previous overall Good rating remaining unchanged pending the next comprehensive inspection.
Strengths
· Sufficient staff with appropriate skills to safely support each person
· Staff were not required to rush care visits; rosters ensured meaningful time with people
· Electronic care visit monitoring application used to track visit times and respond to delays
· Office-based staff with care skills available to cover unplanned absences
· Relatives able to monitor care visit timings via a phone application
Quality-Statement breakdown (1)
safe: Staffing and recruitmentInsufficient evidence to rate
Bluebird Care Newmarket and Fenland received a Good rating across all five key questions at its January 2019 inspection, maintaining the rating awarded in 2015. The service demonstrated compassionate, person-centred care supported by robust governance, innovative use of technology, and a well-trained, motivated staff team.
Strengths
· Staff demonstrated strong safeguarding knowledge and reported concerns appropriately to managers and the local safeguarding authority.
· Robust recruitment practices including DBS checks, criminal record checks, references, and performance and personality testing.
· Sufficient staffing levels with staff reporting they never had to rush and always had adequate travel time between visits.
· Innovative use of technology (PASS system, memory app, tablet computers) to monitor care delivery and enhance person-centred support.
· Comprehensive induction programme including 12 weeks of structured support, mentoring, and shadowing of experienced staff.
Bluebird Care Newmarket and Fenland was rated Good across all five key questions at its announced inspection on 18 September 2015, demonstrating safe medicine management, robust induction and training, consistent staffing, and strong person-centred care. The only minor gap identified was that some informal survey complaints were not being handled through the formal complaints procedure, which the manager committed to address.
Concerns (1)
minorComplaints handling: “some of the surveys contained comments which could be said to constitute a complaint and the manager stated that they would ensure that any such issues would be responded to in writing in future.”
Strengths
· Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood their responsibilities; safeguarding referrals were made appropriately.
· Medicines were well managed with monthly auditing of medication administration records and spot checks on staff practice.
· Robust induction process with weekly contact, direct observations, and spot checks during the first twelve weeks.
· People received care from regular, consistent staff who knew them well; missed calls were very rare.
· Person-centred care plans were detailed, reviewed regularly, and reflected individual choices including gender preference for personal care.