Servesoul - Camden Office

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 9 January 2025 (assessment visit 12 April 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

   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.

2. Caring

   GGood Good

   We spoke with 2 people using the service and three relatives, we also received written feedback from two other relatives.

   Everyone we spoke with felt that care workers were well trained and knowledgeable about their care needs. They felt safe in the care of the care workers and able raise any concerns should there be any. Those who had specialist equipment felt the care workers know how to use items correctly.

   One person told us “the carers were an absolute blessing to our family, we were able to be confident and relax knowing that [relative] was well cared for when we weren’t there." We were also told that “I couldn’t rate them highly enough, they care for my [relative] so well, they had the most wonderful manner with her and it really felt as though they truly did care."

   Everyone we spoke with said the care workers who attended their home were usually the same staff members. If their usual care worker was unavailable due to leave the office communicated this to them beforehand and let them know the name of who they should expect in their place.

   All those we spoke with felt they were treated as individuals by the care workers and felt their needs and preferences were sought and considered. They were asked for consent prior to personal care tasks being carried out.

   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.

3. Responsive

   GGood Good

   Staff understood people's needs with regards to their disabilities, race, sexual orientation and gender and supported them in a caring and considerate way. Feedback from people using the service and relatives also showed that they felt respected and treated with dignity.

   Care staff were able to tell us about promoting people’s independence. Care staff feedback was respectful of people, and they 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. 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. 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.

4. Well-led

   GGood Good

   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. What we found at this assessment supported that view of improvement and that the systems now in place could help to make this sustainable.

   The service provider had effective systems in place to record and hold information in a secure way. The registered manager told us that these processes for keeping information secure were emphasised to all staff. Staff were provided with advice, training and guidance by the provider and registered manager.

   The provider had systems in place to monitor visits to people and respond if there were any sudden unexpected changes to staff availability or ability to make visits at agreed times.

   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. Care staff we had contact with all told us that they believed they were supported and readily able to contact the service if an emergency arose during their visits to people.

   The service liaised with other health and social care professionals. Feedback we received from two commissioning local authorities confirmed this.

   The service was involved with local partners in the geographical areas where they supported people. The registered manager informed us that they believed it was vital to share local experiences and knowledge amongst other providers offering care at home services.