Archived: Meridian Health and Social Care - Hinckley

Sevacare Hinckley is a domiciliary care agency who are registered to offer support to adults with a variety of needs including people with a sensory impairment, people with physical disabilities, people living with dementia and younger and older adults.

Sevacare Hinckley provides personal care to people living in their own homes. 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.

At the time of our inspection, 160 people were receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Improvements were required to recording information within medicine administration records, daily notes and skin integrity forms. The registered manager was implementing new systems to improve this practice.

People were not always told who was coming to support them when a change in staffing occurred. This made some people feel anxious. The registered manager agreed to implement a system to ensure people were told before staff arrived.

People and their relatives told us staff delivered care in a safe way. The provider had systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Risk’s associated with people’s care were identified and assessed.

People were involved in developing their plans of care and were supported by staff who were appropriately inducted and trained. People were supported to eat and drink what they had chosen.

Care plans were person centred which supported staff to understand individual needs and tailor their support to the way the person liked.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were supported by the registered manager and understood their roles and responsibilities. All staff had an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, and had references given before they started to work with people.

People thought the staff were friendly and kind and had built good relationships with them. People felt respected by staff who encouraged their independence.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. (Report published 24 November 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.

Sevacare Hinckley provides personal care and support to adults with a variety of needs living in their own homes. This included older people, people with a sensory impairment, people with physical disabilities, people living with dementia and younger adults. At the time of the inspection there were 130 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was due to move to a new role within the organisation. A new manager had been appointed and was applying to become the registered manager.

People were protected from the risk of harm at the service because staff had undertaken training to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns. They had a good understanding about what safeguarding meant and how to report it. The provider dealt with accidents and incidents appropriately and reviewed these to try and prevent reoccurrences.

Risks to people’s well-being had been assessed. For example, where people required support with moving from one place to another, staff had training and guidance available to them. We found that where someone had been identified as being at risk of falls a specific risk assessment had not been completed. The provider told us that they would complete a risk assessment where someone was at risk of falls.

We found there were enough staff to support people safely during our visit. However, we found that staff did not always arrive at the correct time for their visit. Staff had been checked for their suitability before starting work.

People’s medicines were handled safely and were given to them in accordance with their prescriptions. People’s GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice whenever necessary. We found that some staff had not always signed when medicine had been given. However, they had recorded information in people’s daily notes to show if medicine had been administered.

Staff received appropriate support through an induction and regular supervision. There was on-going training to provide and update staff on safe ways of working.

People chose their own food and drink and were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Staff prompted people to contact healthcare services when required to promote their well-being.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before delivering their support.

People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected.

People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. Skills that people had were maintained. Staff knew people’s preferences and had involved people in planning their own support.

People knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a complaints policy in place that was available for people and their relatives.

People and their relatives had contributed to the planning and review of their support. People had support plans that had included information about their likes, dislikes and history. Staff knew how to support people based on their preferences and how they wanted to be supported.

People, their relatives and staff felt the manager was approachable. The service was led by a registered manager and a manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

The provider had systems in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service. These had not always identified all areas for improvement. The registered manager told us that they were in the process of implementing a new system to improve the checks on the quality of the service. People and their relatives were asked for feedback about the service they had received.

We were told that the service involved people in deciding what care and support they needed and we found that comprehensive initial assessments had taken place. This showed us that the service assured itself that the individual needs of each person could be met, prior to their care package commencing.

There was a robust recruitment process in place and all new support workers were required to attend a comprehensive induction and training programme. This ensured that they were suitable and appropriately trained to work with the people who use the service.

People told us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received. They told us that they were treated with dignity and respect and the support workers who supported them were kind and helpful. One person told us: 'The regular carers arrive on time and treat me with respect.' A relative spoken with explained: 'They used to rush my mother, but when I complained it got better and everything is fine now'.