Blue bird care is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people living in their own homes. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intended visit to the office. This was to make sure the registered manager would be available to support our assessment. The assessment commenced on 29 January 2025 and concluded on 19 March 2025. We visited the office on 5 February 2025. At the time of the inspection, 122 people were receiving support with personal care. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.’ The service was well managed and had good systems and processes in place to monitor the overall quality of the care provided to people. Staff had clear lines of accountability and quality assurance was everyone’s responsibility.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-2118194872.
Bluebird Care (East Hertfordshire) improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement and exited Special Measures, with previous breaches of regulations 12, 13, 17 and 18 met. Concerns remained around person-centred care planning, responsiveness to complaints and preferences, and embedding consistent leadership through upcoming management changes.
Concerns (9)
moderatePerson-centred care: “Some people felt care could be more person centred. The interim manager acknowledged that more work was needed to ensure that all care plans reflected people's needs, choices and preferences.”
moderateCare planning: “There were some concerns raised by people and relatives relating to proactive care and delivering care in accordance with a person's needs or preferences and relative's guidance.”
moderateComplaints handling: “two people and two relatives felt that complaints were not always resolved. We noted that there were no records of the points they raised on the complaints log which indicated they had not been escalated to the management team”
moderateCommunication with families: “People and their relatives gave mixed views about how the service engaged with them and whether their views were listened to.”
moderateLeadership: “we needed to be assured that the ongoing improvements would be maintained with the upcoming changes as the interim manager became less involved.”
moderateGovernance: “more development was needed to ensure the required approach was embedded in all areas.”
minorMissed or late visits: “Records showed that at times staff were late to calls. Staff and the interim manager told us this was mainly due to roadworks in the area.”
minorMedication management: “one relative told us that staff did not support their relative in the way they needed. We reviewed the person's care plan and found instruction was not clear.”
minorStaff training: “we did note that three staff supporting people who had diabetes had not received diabetes training.”
Strengths
· Service exited Special Measures; warning notice for Regulation 12 met and no longer in breach of regulations 12, 13, 17 or 18
· People and relatives reported feeling safe and that staff were kind and caring
· Robust recruitment process with appropriate pre-employment checks (DBS and references)
· Staff received training, regular supervision and competency checks; new staff completed a five-day induction
· Individual risks were assessed and reviewed, with oversight of incidents and appropriate action taken
Quality-Statement breakdown (22)
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseNot rated
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementNot rated
safe: Using medicines safelyNot rated
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionNot rated
safe: Staffing and recruitmentNot rated
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongNot rated
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceNot rated
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawNot rated
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough and access healthcareNot rated
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceNot rated
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityNot rated
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careNot rated
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceNot rated
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesNot rated
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsNot rated
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsNot rated
responsive: End of life care and supportNot rated
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffNot rated
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringNot rated
well-led: Duty of candour, roles, quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsNot rated
well-led: Continuous learning and improving careNot rated
well-led: Working in partnership with othersNot rated