Background to this inspection
Updated
15 August 2019
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection team on the first day consisted of one inspector and one 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 dementia care service. The second day was conducted by one inspector.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
This inspection was announced.
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the manager spent time out in the community supporting staff, so we needed to be sure they would be available to support the inspection process.
What we did before the inspection
Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information the service is required to send us by law. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals that work with the service.
In addition, we considered our last CQC inspection report and information that had been sent to us by other agencies such as commissioners who had a contract with the service.
This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection-
During our inspection we spoke with eight people and three relatives to ask about their experience of the care provided. We also spoke with the nominated individual (The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider), the registered manager, two senior staff members, two of the care staff team, the care coordinator, administration staff and by telephone with an external health care professional who worked closely with the service.
We reviewed specific parts of eight people’s care records and information relating to the registered providers recruitment processes and the arrangements in place for the administration of medicines. A variety of records related to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were also reviewed.
After the inspection:
We continued to seek clarification from the registered manager to support and validate the evidence we found during our inspection. The registered manager provided us a range of additional audits and quality assurance information along with outcomes of thorough investigations they had completed of issues we found as part of this process.
Updated
15 August 2019
About the service
Sevacare – Nottingham is a domiciliary care service which provides care services to adults living in their own homes. Sevacare was registered to provide personal care to 171 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems were in place to assess and manage potential risk for people. People received their medicines in a safe way that was prescribed by their GP. People were protected from avoidable harm and felt safe with the staff who cared for them. Safe recruitment processes were in place to ensure staff were safe to care for people. People were protected from the risk of cross contamination from infection. People confirmed the personal protective equipment used by staff on a daily basis to ensure people were kept safe. When things went wrong the service had systems and processes to ensure they reduced any risk for people.
People’s needs were assessed before the provider took on the care package to ensure the service were able to support people’s needs. Goals and aspirations were supported to ensure people achieved their potential. The principles of the Metal Capacity Act were taken into consideration to ensure people’s choices were in their best interest. Dietary needs were assessed and monitored. Staff worked well with other health care professionals. People were responsible for their own home environment. People were supported to access health care when needed.
People were treated with respect and kindness. Where concerns were identified the registered manager put processes in place to address any concerns, such as language barriers. People were supported to express their views in a variety of ways. Dignity was adhered to.
People were supported by staff who knew their choice and preferences. Care plans were person centred. Care planning was personised to ensure people had choice and control. However, we found inconsistencies with some of the care call times. Systems were in place to monitor and respond to complaints. End of life discussions had taken place and staff were trained to support people at the end of their life. People communication needs were assessed and reviewed regularly.
The registered provider was aware of the duty of candour. The registered manager provided a positive, focused culture. People were involved in discussions of their day to day care. The service built up and maintained a close working relationship with other health care professionals.
Rating at last inspection 08 June 2016
The last rating for this service was Good (published 20 July 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We have made a recommendation about the management of some of the monitoring systems.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk