Archived: Sevacare - Derby

Updated 23 May 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on the 10 and 11 April 2017 and was announced.

The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office to meet with us.

The inspection was carried out by an inspector.

We looked at the information held about the provider and the service including statutory notifications and enquiries relating to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us. We used this information to help us plan this inspection.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The provider returned the completed PIR.

We contacted commissioners for social care, responsible for funding the people that use the service, and asked them for their views. We contacted health and social care professionals who were involved in some people’s care.

We sought the experiences and views of nine people. We visited five people at their homes. We spoke with one person and with three family members, whose relatives used the service, by telephone.

We spoke with the registered manager (who was also the area manager), the branch manager, and the care co-ordinator in the office. We spoke by telephone with three members of the care staff team.

During the inspection visit we looked at the care records of six people who used the service. These included care plans, risk assessments and daily records. We also looked at recruitment and training records for six members of staff. We looked at the provider's systems for monitoring quality, complaints and concerns, minutes of meetings, and a range of policies and procedures.

Updated 23 May 2017

This inspection took place on 10 and 11 of April 2017 and was announced.

Sevacare (Derby) is registered to provide personal care and support for people living within their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people using the service. People's packages of care varied dependent upon their needs.

Sevacare (Derby) had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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 service is run.

The registered manager was at the time of the inspection working in the capacity of area manager. The branch manager of Sevacare (Derby) had submitted an application to the CQC to be registered as the manager, which was being processed.

People’s experiences of receiving care and support in a timely and reliable manner were mixed and some of their experiences had a negative impact on their day to day lives. People expressed concerns that the time staff arrived to provide their care and support could not be relied upon, with staff being either early or late. People also expressed concerns that they were not always provided with information as to which staff would be providing their care each week. A contributory factor to the provider not being able to meet people’s needs consistent with their expectations was in part due to insufficient staff being employed. There was a programme of staff recruitment ongoing at the time of our inspection visit. With sufficient staff the registered manager and branch manager were confident that people’s needs would be met in line with their expectations.

Training provided to staff and staff understanding of their role and responsibilities meant people were supported appropriately with all aspects of their care. This included support with their medicines; however the branch manager acknowledged medicine errors had been made which they had taken measures to address through the provision of additional training and supervision for staff. Upon their recruitment staff had their application and references validated and were checked as to their suitability to work with the people using the service, which enabled the provider to make an informed decision as to their employment.

People’s safety and welfare was promoted by staff that understood and had received training on their role in protecting people from risk. Safety and welfare was further promoted through the assessment and on-going review of potential risks to people. Where risks had been identified measures had been put into place, including the use of equipment to reduce the likelihood of harm, and these were recorded within people’s records and understood and implemented by staff.

Staff understood the importance of seeking people’s consent prior to providing care and support. Staff were aware of people’s rights to make decisions and were able to tell us how they encouraged people to express their opinions on their care and support. Staff liaised with health care professionals where they had concerns about people’s health. People received support with the preparation, cooking and eating of meals where needed to ensure their nutritional needs were met.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the attitude and care of staff. People’s records, including their care plans, had been developed with the involvement of themselves or their relatives and provided information for staff about the people. Staff understood the needs of people using the service and recognised their role in providing good quality care, whilst enabling and promoting people’s independence, privacy and dignity.

People’s views about the care and support were reflected within their care plans, which included the number of visits staff made to people’s homes on a daily basis. However the time of visits was not clear, with generalised statements such as am or lunchtime visits being documented. This meant it was difficult for the person receiving the service and staff and management to have a clear understanding as to the time of people’s calls. This made the monitoring of the quality and reliability of the service difficult, as there were no clear targets or expectations to measure against. Upon commencement of a service people were provided with information about the service, which included key policies and procedures.

People we spoke with and records showed people and their family members had accessed the complaints policy and procedure and had made complaints to the branch manager of the service. We found the complaint policy and procedure had been followed, in that people received a letter of acknowledgement of their complaint and a further letter upon the conclusion of the complaint investigation.

People’s views and those of their family members were sought about the service. The registered manager and branch manager were open and transparent in both the completing of the PIR and in the inspection process. They were aware changes were needed to bring about improvement to the service being provided, which included working with commissioners and seeking the views of people using the service to affect actual change. An action plan to bring about improvements had been put into place and was being monitored.