Sevacare - Hall Green

Sevacare - Hall Green is a domiciliary care service which provides care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 280 people.

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

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care. However, these had not always been effective.

In recent months some people had experienced missed calls. Some of the missed calls were as a result of office staff not correctly allocating calls on the provider’s system. Action had been taken to reduce the risk of re-occurrence. The majority of people told us their care calls were usually on time and if they were going to be late, they were informed. Four people raised that their call times were not always consistent.

The majority of staff took regular COVID-19 tests to ensure they were free from the virus they could pass on to people they supported. Enough personal protective equipment (PPE) was made available for staff who told us they wore and changed this for every call, they had received training and additional information about COVID-19 and understood the importance of being fully protected. Relatives told us that staff followed good infection prevention control practices.

Risks associated with people's health and social care needs had been identified and assessed. We saw that most risk assessments contained clear information about key risks for people and guidance on the support they needed. However, in relation to one specific health condition the information for two people lacked detail and in one case was conflicting.

Safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place. People told us that they felt safe when the staff were in their home with them. Staff were trained in administering medicines safely. Competency checks had been completed to ensure staff were following safe practices.

People and relatives told us although they did not know who the registered manager was, they did know some of the office staff who they felt were approachable. Staff found the management team approachable.

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

Rating at last inspection

This service was previously rated Good (report published 11 May 2019).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about missed and short calls, and safeguarding incidents. We undertook a direct monitoring activity which indicated regulatory action was needed. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those

key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this report.

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

• Sevacare-Hall Green is registered to provider personal care to people living in their own homes. On the day of the inspection, 256 people were receiving support.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People continued to receive safe care. People felt safe within the service and there were enough care staff to keep them safe. Recruitment systems ensured appropriate care staff were appointed. People were administered their medicines as it was prescribed. Care staff had access to personal protective equipment and accidents and incidents were noted so trends could be monitored.

• People continued to receive effective care. Care staff had the skills, knowledge and support required to meet people’s needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People decided the meals they had. Health care professionals were available to people as required.

• People continued to receive support from care staff that were of a caring nature. People decided how they were supported by care staff. Care staff were respectful of people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

• People continued to receive support that was responsive to their needs. People’s support needs were assessed and a care plan developed to show how people would be supported. The support people received was what they wanted and reviews took place. The provider had a complaints process in place that people were aware of and knew how to complain.

• The service did not continue to be well led. The registered manager was unable to demonstrate a good understanding of the service they were managing. Communication between the office and care staff needed to be improved to ensure actions were followed up on. The registered manager and provider carried out quality audits and spot checks to ensure people received a good quality service. Questionnaires were used to engage with people, but the outcome and actions resulting from the analysis was not shared with people so they would know how the service was being improved.

Rating at last inspection:

• Rated Good (Report published 28/07/2016).

Why we inspected:

• This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. Whilst the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ in Well led, it remains rated Good overall.

Follow up:

• We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Sevacare Hall green is registered to provide personal care and support to people living in their own homes. The provider registered this service with us to provide personal care and support for people with a range of varying needs including dementia, who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 390 people received support with personal care.

There was a registered provider for this service. A registered provider is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers 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.

People and their relatives said they were well supported by the staff and the management team. They told us staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. When identified as part of their care planning, people were supported to eat and drink well. Relatives told us they were always involved as part of the team to support their family member. People and their relatives told us staff would access health professionals as soon as they were needed.

Staff we spoke with recognised the different types of abuse. There were systems in place to guide staff in reporting any concerns. Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to peoples’ needs. People were supported to receive their medicines by staff who were trained and aware of the risks associated with them. Staff really knew people well, and took people’s preferences into account and respected them. The management team were adaptable to changes in peoples’ needs and communicated changes to staff effectively.

Staff had up to date knowledge and training about how to support people. Staff ensured people gave their consent to the support they received. The management team took appropriate steps to ensure when people were supported with decisions these were done in their best interest.

People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints and were confident action would be taken when needed. The management team had arrangements in place to ensure people were listened to and action taken if required. Staff were encouraged to be involved in regular meetings to share their views and concerns about the quality of the service.

The management team monitored the quality of the service. The registered provider had systems in place to identify improvements and action them in a timely way.

Overall everyone that used the service and their relatives felt that their needs were being met. One person told us, 'The carers ensure that the personal care that is done for me, meet my requirement.' We found that care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found that staff had training and equipment to ensure they protect people using the service from cross infection.

We found that people were cared for by staff that were suitably recruited.

Everyone that used the service and their relatives that responded to the questionnaires we sent felt that they were receiving a good quality service. One person told us, 'In general the service which we receive is of good standard.' We found that the provider had an effective system to monitor the quality of service that people received.

We found that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

People that we spoke with said that they and their relatives were involved in agreeing and planning their care. We found that people's views and experiences were taken into account in how the service was delivered.

People told us that their needs were being met. One person told us, 'I have no complaints about the care. The care is excellent. They look after X very well and they are very caring staff.'

People told us that they felt safe with the staff that cared for them. We found that the provider had systems in place to respond to allegations of abuse.

People told us that they were treated well by the staff that supported them. One person told us, 'The staff are trained. I have six different people visiting me and they all seem to know what they are doing.'

People told us that they had no concerns about the care that they received. People using the service and their relatives were confident that should they raise a concern it would be listened to and addressed. We found that clear systems were in place to investigate and respond to people's concerns.

We found that not all the records that related to people's care were promptly available for inspection at the office.