Background to this inspection
Updated
11 January 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 15, 16, 19 and 20 October 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because as the service was a domiciliary care agency we needed to be sure that they would be available on the day of the inspection.
The inspection team was made up of one inspector and an expert by experience.
An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
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 sent questionnaires to people who received a service, relatives, staff and professionals to ask their views of the service. We also reviewed the information available to us about the agency such as information from the local authority, information received about the service and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.
During our inspection we spoke with six care workers, one team leader, one care coordinator and the registered manager.
We reviewed the care records, risk assessments, Medicines Administration Records [MAR] and daily records of ten people who used the service. We reviewed how complaints were managed, looked at five staff records and the training records for all the staff employed at the service. We reviewed information on how the quality of the service was monitored and managed.
Following our visit to the service’s office we spoke with two people who used the service and relatives of five people by telephone to ask for their views of the service.
Updated
11 January 2016
This inspection took place on 15, 16, 19 and 20 October 2015 and it was announced. When we inspected the service in October 2013 we found that the provider was meeting all their legal requirements in the areas that we looked at.
Sevacare Luton is a care agency providing personal care and support for people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the agency was providing a service to approximately 100 people.
The agency has a registered manager as required by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 told us that they felt safe and were supported by consistent carers who were knowledgeable and skilled.
People’s needs had been assessed and detailed care plans took account of their individual needs , preferences and choices. There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how individual risks to people could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm.
Staff had an understanding of safeguarding processes and had completed training to enable them to provide effective care. Staff were supported by way of spot checks, supervisions and appraisals and these were consistently completed for all staff and used to improve and give feedback on performance.
The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and was recruiting additional staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided and were friendly, kind and compassionate.
The provider had an effective process for handling complaints and concerns. These were recorded, investigated, responded to and actions to prevent recurrence were recorded.
The provider encouraged feedback on the service provided. Action plans had been developed to address issues raised within audit processes and surveys with a view to continuously improve the service.
The provider had effective quality monitoring processes in place.