Sevacare - Kingstanding

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People told us they felt safely supported by staff. Staff understood how to identify and report safeguarding concerns. Lessons were learnt and shared when things went wrong. People were supported to manage risks safely, including medical health conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy. Staff recruitment systems were robust. However, we did find that some carers were working without the time off they were entitled to. People were happy with the support they received to take their medicines. Most people and their relatives were happy with the carers support to maintain a good hygiene.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Care plans were personalised and people and their loved ones were involved in their development. This included regular reviews. People were happy with the support they received to eat and drink well. We received mixed views from people and their loved ones about how punctual carers were, how long they stayed for and communication about late care calls. Some people were very happy with this aspect of the service and others were less happy. Staff understood people’s capacity and ability to consent to care. The design of consent forms meant it was not clear why loved ones were being asked to sign them.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

The systems in place to monitor the punctuality of carers to calls and how long they were staying had not highlighted some of the concerns we found. Some people and their loved ones were not happy with the time keeping of the carers. We received mixed views on how communicative and responsive the service had been to these issues. We found no evidence anyone had been harmed as a result of carers being late or not staying for the agreed length of the care call. This did, however, reflect a lack of oversight of care call punctuality and attendance times. Systems had also not enabled the management team to identify some staff were not taking the time off and breaks between shifts they needed and were entitled to. Systems to ensure recruitment support and training for staff were robust. Systems to ensure people and their loved ones were involved in the development of care plans and the management of risks for them were robust. Staff spoke positively about the support, supervision and training they received. People and their relatives overall gave positive feedback about the management team. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.