Archived: Seva Care Home

Updated 19 December 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 2 November 2017 and was unannounced.’

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and one expert by experience who was assisted by one interpreter to communicate with Gujarati and Hindi speaking people. 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 our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We asked the registered provider to complete 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 also contacted the Local Authority to ascertain if there were any areas of concern that we should be aware of. We received feedback from one social care professional.

During our inspection the registered manager was on holiday. We spoke with the deputy manager, two members of care staff, four people using the service, one relative and one visitor. We observed lunch time and were invited to sample lunch. We looked at six care records and associated documentation, five staff recruitment files, quality assurance audits and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 19 December 2017

Seva Care Home is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for eight older people, some of whom may live with dementia. All people using the service were female and from an Indian background. During the day of our inspection there were six people living at the service. .

At the last inspection in October 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Risk to people who used the service had been assessed, updated and regularly reviewed to ensure people were safe and the identified risks were minimised. Staff had received safeguarding adult training to ensure they took appropriate actions if people who used the service were at risk of harm and abuse. They understood the reporting procedures. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment practices were followed. Medicines were managed safely and staff were appropriately trained. Appropriate infection control procedures were followed to minimise the risk of spreading infection. Accidents and incidents were documented and audited by the registered manager to find trends and prevent future incidences from happening.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure that the service was able to provide treatment or care appropriate to people’s needs. Staff were provided with ongoing training and regularly planned supervisions and appraisals. This ensured their performance was monitored and they were supported to care for people using the service and meeting their assessed needs. People were offered with a varied, healthy and culturally appropriate vegetarian diet, which was provided freshly every day. People had access to health care services and clinical advice was sought to ensure people’s health and well-being. People lived in a well maintained home and regular decorations were carried out to ensure a nice and comfortable living environment. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service support this practice. The service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and the service in general. We observed interactions between staff and people living in the home to be warm and friendly. Staff supported people in a kind and compassionate manner.

Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and social histories. Care plans contained good information regarding people's preferences, likes and dislikes. People had access to a range of activities, but also told us that they enjoyed their own company. People had access to a complaints procedure which provided relevant contact details should people wish to make a complaint. Wishes how people chose to be supported at the end of their life formed part of their care plan.

Arrangements were in place to seek the opinions of people who lived at the home, so they could provide feedback about the support they received. Annual surveys and questionnaires were issued to capture people's views regarding the service. The home had a registered manager in post. We received positive feedback about the registered manager from staff, people who lived at the home and their relatives. A range of audits and checks to assess and monitor the quality of the service ensured the quality of treatment and care was improved.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.