Servesoul - Camden Office

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

The provider worked in co-operation with people using the service, their families and partner health and social care agencies to maintain people’s safety. When concerns had been raised. Notifications and other information CQC had received showed this happened and was further confirmed by feedback received. Systems were in place to provide safe continuing care. We looked at the care records of 15 people. Each had a referral in place which provided the assessment of current care needs. This was then followed by the service writing a care plan and updating this information as and when care needs changed. It was rare for people to move on to other services, although sometimes people reduced the amount of care received, or if receiving time limited rehabilitation support, or stopped using the service entirely. People were kept safe from avoidable harm of abuse. The provider had guidance for all staff to use and refer to in respect of keeping people safe from harm or abuse. This guidance described what action care staff should take if they had concerns about the welfare of people they were supporting. No serious concerns had been reported but where concern about someone had been, and suggested that harm may have been caused. These instances had been responded to appropriately, in co-operation with people, their families and other relevant authorities. People's care needs assessments included information about their ability to make independent decisions and this was encouraged. Care plans included guidance for staff about the decisions that people could make for themselves and those who required support. Staff members received training about the Mental Capacity Act and had clear guidelines to follow to ensure they worked in adherence to the Act. Medicines were safely managed. There was a medicines policy in place. This policy was detailed and described what action the service would take if medicines support was required.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people using the service and relatives also showed that they felt safe, respected and treated with dignity. Staff were viewed as caring and kind. Those who were receiving care and/or where relevant their families, told us they had seen their care plan and know what was in it, they also said they were involved in making any changes should the need arise. Everyone we spoke to said they felt able to contact the agency office for support with any questions or concerns and wouldn’t hesitate to do so if needed. They said they felt things would be listened to and addressed as needed, though none of them has had to raise anything to date.

Staff understood people's needs with regards to their disabilities, race, sexual orientation and gender and supported them in a caring and considerate way. Care staff were able to tell us about promoting people’s independence. Care staff believed that the provider's expectations about how care was provided gave very clear guidance to them. Care staff gave specific examples of how they would ensure they maintained a person’s privacy and dignity at all times. Our conversation with senior staff at the service and the written feedback received from care workers demonstrated a person centred approach and commitment to viewing people as individuals.

The service was clear about the expectation that care staff would contact the agency if there were any matters that needed to be raised in order to continue to care for people safely and well. At our previous inspection in 2022 the provider was not able to evidence that oversight of the service had continually addressed previous shortfalls including the skills and knowledge about what was required in the service leadership. An example of this was about making statutory notifications to CQC and understanding what was required in this area. A commissioning authority told us that this had much improved and the service was demonstrating their ability to work in partnership and with shared aims and understanding of expectations. Our assessment supports this view. The provider gave clear information to care staff and trained them in order to provide dignified and considerate care. Planning the care of people took account of the whole person. Care plans did not focus purely on health and physical care needs. The registered manager told us that securing a diverse workforce to closely match with people’s needs was a challenge at times although they believed that their efforts in this regard were largely successful.

People and relatives told us that they had seen their care plan and this was discussed with them.

Care staff did not review care plans directly, however, they were clear about raising any observed changes with a manager at the agency.

Local authorities that provided feedback told us that the provider co-operated with them. They did not make specific comments about care needs assessments.

The provider's processes were effective. The 15 care plans we reviewed all showed that updates to care needs, specifically changes, were responded to.

People felt safe being cared for by the regular care staff who supported them.

Care staff demonstrated in their feedback to us that they were aware of how to raise concerns if they became aware of safeguarding concerns.

Safeguarding procedures were clear and provided the necessary information to staff and guidance about responding to concerns.

People did not talk specifically about their understanding of risk assessments but did say they felt safe.

Care staff were aware that they were required to look at risk assessments to check for changes.

The risk assessment process was much improved and was now clear and was followed.

People we spoke with did not provide us with specific views about the service keeping their environment safe.

Care staff told us of the things they consider before completing a visit to people's home.

There were clear risk assessment and health and safety guidelines in place for staff.

People told us that they felt safe with the care staff who visited them. No one raised any concern about the care staff supporting them.

Care staff, in some instances, were able to describe what happened when they were recruited, including the checks made about their suitability.

We looked at seven staff recruitment files of staff recruited in the last twelve months. These showed that the recruitment procedures, including background checks, were being applied correctly.

People did not tell us about infection prevention and control in specific detail.

Care staff were aware of the personal protective equipment they were required to use.

The registered manager informed us about, and provided us with the procedure, for assuring that infection prevention and control measures were applied.

People who required assistance with their medicines told us they believed this was carried out correctly.

Care staff who were required to assist with providing medicines to people told us they felt properly trained and supported to do this safely.

The provider trained care staff and provided clear guidelines about safe medication administration and recording.