Archived: Sevacare - Wolverhampton

Sevacare – Wolverhampton is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. There were 144 people using the service on the day of our inspection.

The service is required to have 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. At the time of our inspection, there was no registered manager in post. We met with the manager who had applied to CQC to become registered manager of the service.

The provider's quality assurance had not enabled them to identify shortfalls in the quality of the service and appropriately respond to these. People’s relatives did not always feel the provider and staff protected their family members from avoidable harm at all times. People did not always receive a punctual and consistent service. People and their relatives expressed frustration over the impact of late and missed calls. People’s relatives did not always feel staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their family members’ needs. Staff lacked understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and what this meant for their day-to-day work with people. Most people and their relatives were dissatisfied with the manner in which the provider had handled their concerns and complaints. People and their relatives expressed mixed views about the management of the service, and some referred to difficulties in contacting the manager. Most staff were concerned about the lack of travel time allocated between their calls.

Staff understood the different forms and potential signs of abuse and how to report any concerns of this nature. The risks associated with people’s care and support had been assessed with them, recorded and plans put in place to manage these. Staff understood the importance of working in accordance with people’s risk assessments. The provider adhered to safe recruitment practices to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work with people. They had also developed systems and procedures designed to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Staff received induction, regular supervision and participated in an ongoing programme of training to help them perform their duties and responsibilities. People’s consent to care had been sought by the provider. People had appropriate support from staff to eat and drink, where they needed this. Staff played a positive role in helping people to maintain good health, assisting them to access healthcare services as required.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, showing concern for their wellbeing. The provider had taken steps to support and encourage people to share their views and be involved in decision-making that affected them. Staff understood the need to protect people’s privacy and dignity, and demonstrated this in care and support they provided.

People and their relatives were encouraged to participate in needs assessment, care planning and care reviews. People’s care plans included details of their background and what mattered to them, and staff made use of these.

The majority of staff felt well supported by the manager. Staff understood the role of whistleblowing and felt comfortable about challenging the provider’s decisions or work practices if they needed to. The manager understood the duties and responsibilities associated with their post, and had the support they needed from the provider to make improvements in the service. The provider had developed and implemented quality assurance systems in order to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We gave the manager short notice of our inspection. Sevacare Wolverhampton was providing care and support to 136 people at the time of our inspection. We carried out telephone interviews with five people who received a service. We visited the office and spoke with two care workers, the branch manager and the registered manager who supported us with the inspection of this agency. We talked with the manager and looked in detail at the care records for 10 people. We spoke with three members of staff and three relatives on the telephone. We looked at six staff files.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We spoke with five people who used the service who all told us that they felt safe. One relative we spoke with told us they had no concerns regarding their family member's safety. We saw that the service had systems in place to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. Staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. The manager had a good understanding of issues around safeguarding and their role in protecting people. There were policies and procedures in place to make sure that unsafe practice would be identified and people would be protected. One relative told us, 'They are very pleasant with my husband, he is quite happy with them.'

Is the service effective?

People received the care and support they required to meet their needs and maintain their health and welfare. We saw that people who received care and support from the agency had a care record that included assessments of their individual needs and risks. The care plan had been developed to meet those assessed needs. The records we viewed had been reviewed on a regular basis, or earlier if required.

Prior to people receiving care and support, we saw that information regarding the person's health needs was obtained from other professionals, such as social workers. We viewed records which showed us training and development was provided to staff to enable them to deliver support safely and to an appropriate standard. We spoke with people who used the service who told us staff were knowledgeable about their individual care needs and they were confident in staff abilities when support was being given. One person told us, 'It's wonderful, I'm very satisfied with them.'

Is the service caring?

All the people we spoke with were happy with the care and support provided by the agency. People told us that the service engaged with them to ensure that their needs and wishes were met. Relatives told us staff were caring and kind. One relative said, 'They are extremely compassionate and kind, the carers bought mom flowers for her birthday.' Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities to respect people's privacy and dignity. A member of staff told us, 'We've got time to give good, proper care and the staff are kind.'

Is the service responsive?

We spoke with the manager who told us they involved other professionals in people's care when their needs changed. This was so their care could continue to be provided safely and appropriately.

All the people we spoke with told us they felt that the service listened to them. Comments we received included, "They are doing everything they can.' They also told us that if they needed to change any area of their agreed care and support plan, this was accommodated by the service. Another person told us, 'One carer was rude and the company took her out. They are pretty good, them really nice.' This showed us that the service was responsive to people's needs.

Is the service well led?

The manager was aware of their responsibilities in meeting the essential standards of quality and safety. We saw the service had systems in place to ensure people were regularly consulted about their views and ideas on how the service should be run. This was done by means of satisfaction surveys with people and individual meetings. We saw quality assurance systems were in place.

The people we spoke with told us that the management were approachable and they had received a copy of the complaints procedure prior to joining the service. Staff felt well supported and records we reviewed confirmed that staff were appropriately trained and supported to carry out their role safely. The documentation we viewed, together with people's comments, showed us that the service was well led. One relative told us, 'The company is very good and very efficient.'

People we spoke with confirmed they had been involved in making decisions about the care and support they wanted to receive. People made positive comments about the service they received. One person said, 'They are very, very kind, I don't know what I would do without them'.

We found that systems were in place to support people to have their medication. We found that improvements were required in relation to the way the medication records were completed.

We found that procedures were in place to ensure only suitable care workers were recruited. This meant systems were in place which ensured people were safe.

There were systems in place to monitor the service that was provided to people. This ensured that any issues could be identified and improvements could be made. One person said, 'Everything is very good and I don't want to change anything.'