You are here

Archived: Sevacare - Leicester Requires improvement

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 June 2015

This inspection took place on 5 January 2015 and was unannounced.

Sevacare-Leicester provides personal to people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection there were 48 people using the service. The service provides personal care to older people, people living with dementia, people with learning disabilities, people with mental health needs, people with sensory needs and younger adults.

A registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection on 6 August 2014 we identified some concerns with the care provided to people who used the service. People were not fully protected from unsafe care and support because plans of care had not always been reviewed to ensure they met people's changing care needs and risk assessments had not been undertaken for some people who had health conditions. People had been placed at risk because care and support was not always provided at the agreed times. Improvements were needed in relation to how the provider monitored the quality of the service provided. We asked the provider to send us an action plan outlining how they would make improvements.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made however further improvements were needed to ensure that people received care and support at the agreed times.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe with staff.

Staff had received training on how to protect people who used the service from abuse or harm. They demonstrated they were aware of their role and responsibilities in keeping people as safe as possible.

Recruitment checks had been carried out to keep people safe.

Medication records did not always show that people had received their medications.

Assessments of the risks associated with people’s care required improvement to ensure that staff knew how to provide safe care and support.

People who used the service and relatives told us they found staff to be caring, compassionate and respectful. They thought their rights to dignity, choice and independence were protected by staff. People told us that they were involved in decisions about their care. People told us that their consent was sought before care was provided to them. However, people’s capacity to make their own decisions was not always fully assessed.

Continuity of care was not promoted due to care not being provided to people by a consistent staff team. People told us that they were not always aware of which care workers would arrive to undertake their care calls.

Peoples complaints had been investigated but the outcome of the investigation had not always been communicated to them.

Some people were concerned about the poor communication and action from the office of the service.

The provider had internal quality and monitoring procedures in place though these were not always effective. Spot checks to assess the quality of care supplied to people required further development..

The registered manager gave staff the opportunity to share their views about the service provided.

The provider supported staff by an induction and ongoing support, training and development. However, training was not comprehensive to enable staff to be fully equipped to deal with all the needs that people had.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which corresponds to a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 . You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 3 June 2015

The service was not consistently safe.

People and their relatives told us that they had not always received care at the agreed times.

Medication records did not show whether people had always received their medication as prescribed .

People told us they felt safe with staff from the agency. Staff were aware of how to report concerns to relevant agencies if the service had not acted properly to protect people.

Recruitment procedures designed to keep people safe were in place though needed improvement.

Assessments of the risks associated with people’s care required improvement to ensure that staff knew how to provide safe care and support.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 3 June 2015

The service was not consistently effective.

People told us that their consent was sought before care was provided to them. However, people’s capacity to make their own decisions was not always fully assessed.

The provision of training needed improvement to ensure staff were provided with up to date skills and knowledge to meet people’s specific care needs.

People told us that staff supported them to prepare meals and that they had a choice of food.

Staff monitored people’s health to ensure any changing health needs were met.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 3 June 2015

The service was not consistently caring.

Although people and their relatives told us that staff were kind, caring, treated them with dignity and respected their choices, care was not always provided at the agreed times.

People told us that they were involved in decisions about their care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 3 June 2015

The service was not consistently responsive.

Care plans had been reviewed to meet people's changing needs.

People’s complaints were investigated but they were not informed of the results of the investigation.

Continuity of care was not promoted due to care not being provided to people by a consistent staff team.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 3 June 2015

The service was not consistently well led.

The provider had not notified us and all relevant agencies of all incidents that may affect people who use the service, however measures were now in place to ensure this was done.

People told us that the provider’s office team did not always listen or act on comments they raised.

Quality checks had not been consistently carried out to ensure that people received care and support at the times they needed.