Archived: Seva Line Limited

Updated 5 August 2015

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.

This inspection took place on 08 and 09 June 2015 and was announced. We provided 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure management were available at their office to facilitate our inspection.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors from the Care Quality Commission and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using, or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the Provider Information Return (PIR), which the provider completed before the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We also reviewed information we had received since the last inspection including notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us. We also liaised with external agencies including the contract monitoring team from the local authority.

During our inspection we went to the provider’s head office and spoke to the registered manager and the review officer. At the time of our inspection, we found there were 24 people who were using the service, which employed 19 members of care staff. We reviewed the care records of six people that used the service and records relating to the management of the service. We looked at documentation such as care plans, staff personnel files, policies and procedures and quality assurance systems.

We visited four people who used the service in their own home and spoke with two people who used the service. We also spoke with six members of staff including the registered manager and a review officer.

After the inspection our expert by experience spoke with three people who used the service and to the relatives of 10 people who used the service over the telephone as part of the inspection. This was in order to seek feedback about the quality of service being provided.

Updated 5 August 2015

The announced inspection took place on 08 and 09 June 2015.

At our last inspection on 22 May 2013 the service was found to be meeting all regulatory requirements.

Sevaline is a domiciliary care agency and is based within Bolton Enterprise Centre, close to the town centre of Bolton. The service offers home care services to the surrounding area. Support is offered between 7am and 10pm seven days a week and the service can also offer overnight support on request. The service provides staff who can speak a variety of different languages to meet the needs of the local community.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 inspection twenty four people were using the service.

During our inspection we found that the service was in breach of one regulation. We found that the registered person had not protected people against the risks associated with safeguarding people who used the service from abuse and improper treatment. On the whole, we found that the staff we spoke with had limited knowledge of the principles of safeguarding and needed to be prompted to explain exactly what it meant and what action was required if they suspected any abuse. This was in breach of Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, with regards to safeguarding, because the service had failed to ensure they had systems and processes to effectively prevent the abuse of people.

People who used the service, their relatives and professionals we contacted told us they felt the service was safe. There were appropriate risk assessments in place with guidance on how to minimise the risks such as the administration of medication and using manual equipment.

At the time of the inspection nineteen care staff were employed by the service. Recruitment of staff was robust and there were sufficient staff to attend to people’s needs. Rotas were flexible and could be adjusted according to changing need. Staff were deployed who understood the culture and the language of the people they supported.

Medication policies were appropriate and comprehensive and we found medicines were administered safely.

People’s care plans were person centred and contained information about people’s preferences and wishes. Care plans included appropriate personal and health information and were up to date. People told us that should there be a need to complain they felt confident in talking to the manager directly and that they had regular discussions with management.

People who used the service and their relatives told us the staff were caring and kind. We observed staff interacting with people who used the service in a kind and considerate manner, ensuring people’s dignity and privacy were respected.

Residents’ and relatives’ views were sought regularly as a means for people to put forward suggestions and raise concerns.

There was an appropriate complaints procedures in place and we saw that complaints were followed up appropriately in a timely manner.

At the time of inspection there were no records of staff receiving training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The service had plans in place to introduce this training in July 2015.

People who used the service and their relatives spoke favourably about how the service was managed. One relative said: “I have no complaints at all.” People who used the service and their relatives knew the manager by name and told us that all staff were very friendly and approachable.

The service had a business continuity plan in place which covered areas such as loss of access to the office, loss of staff, loss of utilities and key suppliers, and the action to be taken in each event. The plan also included the prioritising of people who used the service with regards to their vulnerability.

People who used the service told us that they valued the care staff being the same cultural background and themselves. Most care staff had been in employment with the service for several years and this ensured consistency of care staff.