Archived: Sevacare - Bolton

Updated 23 August 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 26 and 27 July 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office to facilitate the inspection. At the previous inspection on 13 July 2013 the service was found to be meeting all the standards inspected at that time.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission. Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service, including information we had received since the service registered such as notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us. We also liaised with external agencies including the contract monitoring team from the local authority. Before the inspection, the provider completed 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.

We reviewed the care records of people who used the service and records relating to the management of the service. We looked at documentation including nine care plans, five staff personnel files, policies and procedures and quality assurance systems.

During our inspection we went to the provider’s head office and spoke with the area manager and the registered manager and five care workers. We spoke with six people who used the service and visited four people who used the service in their own homes in order to seek feedback about the quality of service being provided.

At the time of our inspection there were 174 people who were using the service, including 21 people who were living in an extracare housing scheme. The service employed 61 members of staff, an administrator, a care coordinator and two team leaders. The registered manager was supported by an area manager who visited the office frequently.

Updated 23 August 2016

This inspection took place on 26 and 27 July 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office to facilitate the inspection. At the previous inspection on 31 July 2013 the service was meeting all the standards inspected at that time.

Sevacare is a domiciliary care service, registered to provide personal care within people’s homes across Bolton via private arrangements or through local authority contracts. The service also supported people who were living in their own apartments within an extracare housing scheme. The local office is situated in Bolton.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People we spoke with who used the service told us they felt safe using the service. The service had appropriate systems and procedures in place which sought to protect people who used the service from abuse. Staff we spoke with were able to tell us about the different forms of potential abuse.

We looked at the care and support records of people who used the service and found these were very comprehensive, well organised and easy to follow and included a range of risk assessments to keep people safe from harm.

We found there were robust recruitment procedures in place and required checks were undertaken before staff began to work for the service.

We looked at how the service managed people’s medicines and found that suitable arrangements were in place. The service did not administer any controlled medicines.

There was an appropriate up to date accident and incident policy and procedure in place and details of any accidents and incidents were recorded in detail.

There was an up to date business continuity plan which covered areas such as loss of utility supplies, loss of IT systems, influenza pandemic, fire and flood and adverse weather.

At the time of our inspection visit, we found staffing levels to be sufficient to meet the needs of people who used the service.

People who used the service told us they felt that staff had the right skills and training to do their job. Staff undertook a comprehensive induction into the service at the start of their employment and detailed induction records were kept in staff personnel files.

Staff told us they felt they had received sufficient training to undertake their role competently and that undertaking training helped them to feel confident in meeting people’s care needs.

The service used a ‘care workers assessment’ form which was used to assess staff competencies and included a series of checks. Each care staff member had a ‘care worker compliance report’ which identified planned visits, the actual number of visits made and the percentage of compliance, the planned and actual start and finish time and the percentage of compliance.

We saw that the service communicated regularly with peoples’ relatives and provided regular updates to family members regarding various aspects of their relative’s care and support.

There was a large staff training room in the office based premises which was used to deliver training by the Sevacare ‘in-house’ trainers. Staff had completed training in a range of areas, including dementia, safeguarding, first aid, medicines, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, infection control, person-centred care, pressure sore care, catheter care and health and safety. Training was aligned with the requirements of the Care Certificate.

Staff received supervision and appraisal from their manager and the service kept a record of all staff supervisions that had previously taken place. Staff told us they received supervisions every two to three months in addition to an annual appraisal.

Care plans contained a comprehensive ‘support plan’ document, received from the referring professional that was used prior to service commencement. Before any care and support was given the service obtained consent from the person who used the service or their representative.

The structure of the care plans was clear and easy to access information. People who used the service had a care plan that was personal to them with copies held at both the person’s own home and in the office premises.

People who used the service told us that staff were kind and treated them with dignity and respect. We found the service aimed to embed equality and human rights through well-developed person-centred care planning. Staff we spoke with were able to describe the principles of person-centred care and said they supported the same people most of the time providing continuity of care.

The views and opinions of people were actively sought. People who used the service and their relatives told us they were involved in developing their care and support plan.

The service did not provide end of life care directly but could support other relevant professionals such as district nurses and Macmillan Nurses, if required.

The service had a ‘Service User Guide’ which was given to each person who used the service, in addition to a Statement of Purpose’, which is a document that includes a standard required set of information about a service.

People told us that the service was responsive to their needs. The needs of people were assessed by experienced members of staff before being accepted into the service and pre-admission assessments were completed.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that should there be a need to complain they felt confident in talking to the manager directly. The service had a complaints policy and procedure and we saw that they followed this consistently. We found that a complaints log sheet was used to track any trends or regularly recurring areas of concern, which were then discussed with the relevant staff member or whole team if applicable.

The manager sought staff input into the delivery of the service at team meetings and through supervision meetings. A staff form had been established to enable staff to input their views. Monthly newsletters were also provided to staff that identified any issues of concern, any new information or any reminders of information previously discussed.

It was clear from our observations that the management team worked well together in a mutually supportive way. We saw a number of audits in place such as medication, complaints, and communication and satisfaction surveys.

We found the service had a comprehensive range of policies and procedures in place, which covered all aspects of service delivery.

The service is a member of the United Kingdom Homecare Association Ltd (UKHCA).