The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Sagecare Limited

Bridgegate Business Centre, Martinfield, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, AL7 1JG (01707) 332337

Provided and run by:
Sage Care Limited

All Inspections

08/05/2014

During a routine inspection

Sagecare Limited is a large domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to about 460 people living in their own homes in Welwyn Garden City and the surrounding areas. Although there was a manager in post at the time of our inspection, they were not yet registered with the commission.

Staff had been given training about how people should be treated with kindness and how to promote people’s dignity, respect and privacy. People who used the agency told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect and when they had raised any concerns they had been dealt with effectively. One person told us, "They do an amazing amount of work carefully in such a short time." Another person told us, "The carers are my friends and they do all that is requested of them and a bit more".

People had been involved in the planning of their care. Important information about people’s history and preferences, which helped the staff get to know people and how they would like to be cared for, was recorded in their care files. However, the written information provided about how staff should support people and how risks to their welfare should be minimised, varied in the style and the amount of detail according to which member of staff had completed it. This could lead to people receiving inconsistent care and support because of lack of information or guidance. The manager must ensure that staff have all the information they require to meet people’s needs consistently.

Although staff had received training during their induction on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 there were no capacity assessments or best interest decisions in place for people who used the agency. The manager must ensure that where needed, these are completed so that people who cannot make decisions for themselves are protected.

All of the people that we talked with told us that they felt safe and that they would know what to do, and who to contact, if they thought they had been mistreated in any way. There were systems and processes in place to reduce the risk of people suffering any abuse. Staff had the support, skills and competencies they required to meet people’s needs.

Care staff told us that they had attended all of their mandatory training and could request extra training if needed. New staff had been given the appropriate time to get to know the people they would be working with before they were expected to work on their own.

Staff had received training in the administration of medication and were aware of the agency’s policies and procedures.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided, which took into consideration the views of the people who used the agency. Staff felt that they could discuss any concerns with the manager and that there was an open culture within the agency.

15 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our inspection of Sagecare on 17 May 2013, we found that the provider did not have effective systems in place to ensure that care was effectively planned and delivered to ensure people received the care that they needed.

The provider sent us a report in September 2013 to tell us the actions they would take to address the shortfalls. This included the updating of the software on the electronic call monitoring system that would raise an alert at the office if a call did not happen within identified times, and the appointment of a permanent member of staff to monitor the alerts.

At our inspection on 15 November 2013, we found that the provider had taken appropriate steps to implement systems to ensure that care was effectively planned and delivered.

We did not speak with people who used the service at this inspection.

17 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We sent out questionnaires to 60 people who used the service and also enclosed a separate questionnaire for their relative/advocate. We received 13 completed replies from people who used the service and 10 completed replies from relatives/advocates.

Overall, the responses showed that people were generally satisfied with the care and support provided by their regular care workers and felt safe when the care workers visited. The majority of people rated the care as good or excellent, no one rated it as poor.

When we visited Sagecare's office we saw that each person who used the service had a written care plan and risk management plan. Staff members told us that copies of these were kept in each person's home. This gave them the information they needed to provide people with individual and effective care.

Records showed that there were times when people did not receive their planned visit. This meant that they did not receive the care that they should.

The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We found that staff members were provided with the training and support to enable them to provide safe care to meet people's needs.

The provider had an effective system to seek the views of people who used the service.

6 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who use the service on the telephone and one of their relatives. People stated that they were satisfied with the service. All three people stated that their regular carers were good and knew their needs and how to meet them. One person told us, 'Yes my carers are good, regular carers know me and what they need to do.'

People confirmed that they were involved in their care planning and were asked to sign care plans to express their consent with the planned care. The care plans we checked confirmed this.

The care plans were detailed and contained clear instructions on how people should be helped and supported.

We saw records of cooperative work of the service with other professionals involved in people's care.

The staff records that we saw showed that all checks were carried out prior to sending staff to shadow more experienced care workers as part of their induction.

All people were given a complaints procedure and the form. The service designated a staff member to help people make a complaint or express concerns when they needed help and support to do this.

30 March 2012

During a routine inspection

The people who use the service told us that generally they are happy with the care they are given and are happy with the staff who administer their care. They told us that they are reliant on the care staff to assist them is all aspects of their lives. The close relative of one person told us that without the carers their life would be very difficult.

We were told that the staff are well trained and that they are very capable and were always in a good mood. A person told us that they feel lifted when the care staff had visited them. Another person said that the care staff always cooked their favourite food. People we spoke with confirmed that they were involved in the planning of their own care or the care of their relatives.

People told us that they feel safe and that they trusted the staff to ensure they were safe.