Seva Line Limited

Updated 18 September 2018

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 08 and 10 August 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission. Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the Provider Information Return (PIR), which the provider completed before the inspection; 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 also reviewed information we had received since the last inspection including notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us. We also liaised with external agencies including the contract monitoring team from the local authority.

During our inspection we went to the provider’s head office and spoke to the registered manager, the office manager, the office administrator and five care staff members. We reviewed the care records of seven people who used the service and records relating to the management of the service. We looked at documentation such as care plans, staff personnel files, policies and procedures and quality assurance systems.

At the time of our inspection thirty-two people who were using the service. We visited and spoke with three people who used the service in their own home and spoke with two other people who used the service over the phone. We also spoke with the relatives of two people using the service and to a local authority commissioner. This was to seek feedback about the quality of the service being provided.

Updated 18 September 2018

This announced inspection took place on 08 and 10 August 2018. At our last inspection on 08 and 09 June 2015 the service was given an overall rating of good but there was one breach of regulations in relation to staff receiving training in recognising and responding to abuse.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question of safe to at least good. The service then relocated to a new address due to an unforeseen closure of the building in which they were situated and this is the first inspection undertaken since the service registered with CQC at their new location address.

At this inspection we found the provider had taken the necessary remedial action and was now meeting the requirements of the regulations; staff had now received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Sevaline is a domiciliary care agency and is based on Chorley Old Road, close to the town centre of Bolton and is a ‘preferred provider’ for the local authority. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older and younger adults. Support is offered between 7am and 10pm seven days a week. The service provides staff who can speak a variety of different languages to meet the needs of people living in the local community.

Not everyone using Sevaline receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

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 thirty-two people were using the service.

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.

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. Most care staff had been in employment with the service for several years and this ensured consistency of care staff.

Medication policies were appropriate and comprehensive and we observed medicines were administered safely, and staff were knowledgeable about medicines administration processes.

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.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place and we saw that complaints were followed up in a timely manner.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and were knowledgeable about this area.

People who used the service and their relatives spoke favourably about how the service was managed. Staff comments regarding the manager were also positive and they told us they felt supported and listened to.

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.