The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Sevacare - Banbury

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

19a George Street, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX16 5BH (01295) 278261

Provided and run by:
Sevacare (UK) Limited

All Inspections

1 December 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Sevacare Banbury on the 01 December 2015. The inspection was announced. Sevacare is a domiciliary care service in Banbury that provides care and support to people within the community. At the time of this inspection the agency was supporting 89 people.

The previous inspection of this service was carried out in January 2014 and the service was in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. This was due to concerns in relation to assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. We required the provider to take action to improve. The provider sent us an action plan stating they would be meeting the relevant legal requirements by March 2014.

At this inspection we checked to see if improvements had been made. We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 staff had a clear understanding on how to safeguard the people and protect their health and wellbeing. Records confirmed the service notified the appropriate authorities where concerns relating to suspected abuse were identified. However management of medicines was not always effective.

People received effective care from staff who understood their needs. Staff received adequate training and support to carry out their roles effectively. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time.

Staff were supported through ongoing meetings and individual supervisions to reflect on their practice and develop their skills. Staff received mandatory training, training specific to people’s need as well as any training towards professional development.

People spoke positively about the care they received from staff. People told us the staff were caring and treated them with kindness and compassion. Staff understood the importance of maintaining confidentiality. Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and always maintained their dignity. People were encouraged to maintain independence.

People received support based on their wishes and personal needs. The service responded positively to people’s requests, views and opinions. Staff respected people’s privacy and maintained their dignity.

People benefitted from care that was planned and delivered in a person centred way. We found when people’s needs changed the service responded. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and the provider had a complaints policy in place.

Leadership of the service was open and transparent and supported a positive culture committed to making service changes that would allow best care to be provided. However, systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision were not being used effectively.

28 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with eight people and two people's relatives. We also spoke with nine care staff and the Registered Manager. We reviewed seven care files and six staff files. We also reviewed documents made available to us by the manager. On the day of our inspection 69 people were being supported by the service.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We saw records in people's files that were signed to state they agreed with planned care and ongoing changes. Staff had a good understanding Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the procedures to follow to protect people's rights if the person was unable to give consent.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. All care files we reviewed had pre-support assessments in place. The assessments informed support plans that were regularly updated and backed up, where appropriate, by risk assessments.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Copies of the safeguarding policy and procedures were available to all staff. The safeguarding policy contained details of how to identify signs of abuse.

Staff received appropriate professional development. Training records demonstrated that staff undertook a varied training programme. This included the availability of specialist training for all staff. Some staff for example, had undertaken dementia care and palliative care training. Staff we spoke with told us that they had completed induction and core training prior to starting work. The six staff files we looked at confirmed that staff attended regular training and refresher courses.

The registered Manager had identified that quality monitoring had suffered as a result of not being around as much as they would like. The provider had responded by appointing a new acting manager. On the day of our inspection however, the provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. When incidents and accidents had occurred the service had not used the lessons learnt to improve the service and audits were not being carried out.

9 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We found care plans and assessments contained detailed information about people's preferences and choices. One person said 'They discussed my care plan with me, it is really detailed'.

People were treated with care and respect; they received care in a way they preferred. One relative told us 'they talk to mum all the time and ask her if she ok and tell her what they are doing'.

We found care was delivered safely. One person told us 'I feel safe; I look forward to the staff coming'.

We found robust staff recruitment procedures ensured appropriately qualified staff were recruited. Pre employment checks were undertaken.

Staff were supported and trained to enable them to deliver good care One staff member told us 'training is excellent; we receive client specific training for example training is delivered at a person's home by the district nurse'.

People told us they had no complaints about the quality of the care service provided. People knew how to complain if they had a concern. One person told us 'I can rely on them, but I would call the office if I had a problem'.

12 December 2011

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with said that the agency was mainly reliable. Some people told us that care staff did not always arrive at the right time, but they were usually contacted if the care was to be given very late. The agency had a target of alerting people if they were going to be more than 15 minutes late.

People told us that they usually get the same care staff or care staff who had been to them before. Some people had had cause to make a complaint and felt that it had been dealt with to their satisfaction.