08 and 09 June 2015
During a routine inspection
The announced inspection took place on 08 and 09 June 2015.
At our last inspection on 22 May 2013 the service was found to be meeting all regulatory requirements.
Sevaline is a domiciliary care agency and is based within Bolton Enterprise Centre, close to the town centre of Bolton. The service offers home care services to the surrounding area. Support is offered between 7am and 10pm seven days a week and the service can also offer overnight support on request. The service provides staff who can speak a variety of different languages to meet the needs of the local community.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
At the time of inspection twenty four people were using the service.
During our inspection we found that the service was in breach of one regulation. We found that the registered person had not protected people against the risks associated with safeguarding people who used the service from abuse and improper treatment. On the whole, we found that the staff we spoke with had limited knowledge of the principles of safeguarding and needed to be prompted to explain exactly what it meant and what action was required if they suspected any abuse. This was in breach of Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, with regards to safeguarding, because the service had failed to ensure they had systems and processes to effectively prevent the abuse of people.
People who used the service, their relatives and professionals we contacted told us they felt the service was safe. There were appropriate risk assessments in place with guidance on how to minimise the risks such as the administration of medication and using manual equipment.
At the time of the inspection nineteen care staff were employed by the service. Recruitment of staff was robust and there were sufficient staff to attend to people’s needs. Rotas were flexible and could be adjusted according to changing need. Staff were deployed who understood the culture and the language of the people they supported.
Medication policies were appropriate and comprehensive and we found medicines were administered safely.
People’s care plans were person centred and contained information about people’s preferences and wishes. Care plans included appropriate personal and health information and were up to date. People told us that should there be a need to complain they felt confident in talking to the manager directly and that they had regular discussions with management.
People who used the service and their relatives told us the staff were caring and kind. We observed staff interacting with people who used the service in a kind and considerate manner, ensuring people’s dignity and privacy were respected.
Residents’ and relatives’ views were sought regularly as a means for people to put forward suggestions and raise concerns.
There was an appropriate complaints procedures in place and we saw that complaints were followed up appropriately in a timely manner.
At the time of inspection there were no records of staff receiving training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The service had plans in place to introduce this training in July 2015.
People who used the service and their relatives spoke favourably about how the service was managed. One relative said: “I have no complaints at all.” People who used the service and their relatives knew the manager by name and told us that all staff were very friendly and approachable.
The service had a business continuity plan in place which covered areas such as loss of access to the office, loss of staff, loss of utilities and key suppliers, and the action to be taken in each event. The plan also included the prioritising of people who used the service with regards to their vulnerability.
People who used the service told us that they valued the care staff being the same cultural background and themselves. Most care staff had been in employment with the service for several years and this ensured consistency of care staff.