You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

We inspected Sova Healthcare Limited on the 9 May 2016. The visit was made at short notice to make sure the registered manager would be available. This was the first inspection of the service since registration.

Sova Healthcare Limited is registered as a domiciliary care agency and provides a range of services including personal care. Although the agency is based in Bradford they operate in Leeds and throughout West Yorkshire. At the time of inspection the agency were only providing care and support to three people.

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.

The staff we spoke with were able to describe how individual people preferred their care and support to be delivered and the importance of treating people with respect in their own homes.

The feedback we received from relatives about the standard of care was consistently good. We saw that people were supported by regular staff. This consistency enabled care staff to develop meaningful relationships with the people they supported.

The support plans we looked at were person centred and were reviewed on a regular basis to make sure they provided accurate and up to date information. The staff we spoke with told us they used the support plans as working documents and they provided sufficient information to enable them to carry out their role effectively and in people's best interest.

The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff showed a good knowledge of the people they supported and their capacity to make decisions.

There were clear lines of communication and accountability within the agency and staff were supported through a planned programme of supervision and training.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received.

There was a quality assurance monitoring system in place that was designed to continually monitor and identify shortfalls in service provision. Audit results were analysed for themes and trends and there was evidence learning from incidents took place and appropriate changes were made to procedures or work practices if required.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was safe.

There were processes in place to help make sure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of the procedures for safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Assessments were undertaken in relation to potential risks to people who used the service and staff. Written plans were in place to manage these risks.

The staff recruitment and selection procedure was robust and there were appropriate staffing levels to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was effective.

People were involved in discussions about their care and support needs.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs and received regular training and support to make sure they carried out their roles effectively.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was caring.

Care and support was provided in a caring and respectful way.

People’s rights to privacy, dignity and independence were valued.

Wherever possible people were involved in reviewing their care needs and were able to express their views about they wanted their care and support to be delivered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans were in place outlining people’s care and support needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs, their interests and preferences which enabled them to provide a personalised service.

There was a clear complaints procedure and people who used the service knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was well led.

There was a quality assurance monitoring system in place that continually monitored and identified any shortfalls in service provision.

Audit results were reviewed and analysed for themes and trends. If necessary changes were made to procedures or work practices.

People who used the service were asked about their views and opinions of the service and knew who to contact if they had a problem.