Archived: Sevacare - Wolverhampton

Updated 18 May 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 was planned to check 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.

The inspection took place on 3 April 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice, because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

As part of our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. We also contacted representatives from the local authority and Healthwatch for their views, and looked at the statutory notifications the provider had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send to us by law.

During our inspection, we spoke with six people who used the service, 13 relatives, a social worker and a Quality Assurance and Compliance Officer from the local authority’s commissioning team. We also talked with 14 members of staff, including a regional manager, the manager, senior care staff and care staff.

We looked at two people's care files, complaints records, three recruitment records, staff rotas, medicines records, the provider’s service user guide, selected policies and procedures, and records associated with the provider's quality assurance systems.

Updated 18 May 2017

The inspection took place on 3 April 2017 and was announced.

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.