Sevacare - Birmingham Central

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

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and harm. People's support needs were risk assessed and care plans provided staff with the information they needed to manage the identified risk. Recruitment records we reviewed required improvements to demonstrate all the required actions were carried out. Staff had regular training opportunities and training specific to people's individual needs was provided. People received their medicines as prescribed. Infection control policies and procedures were in place to keep people safe.

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.

People were supported by staff who knew and understood their needs. People told us they had built good relationships with staff and staff were aware of their likes and dislikes. People had good links with family or advocate services and staff supported people to maintain this. Staff respected people's individuality and diversity and were aware of people's personal preferences. People and relatives were involved in the development of care plans and reviews. One relative told us, “Yes, we have a care plan it was done with me, Sevacare and [Relative]. I think the hospital set it up in the first place. It`s a very good service especially as we get the same 2 people, it works very well, I don’t think they could do much more really.”

Peoples’ care plans were reviewed regularly, they remained up to date and appropriate to the individual. Changes to the care plans were communicated to staff. Staff gave us examples showing how they had contributed to people’s care planning for example, where people required additional care because their mobility needs changed.

The provider had safeguarding systems and processes to help keep people safe. Accident and incident records were completed and monitored by the management to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence. Any actions or trends were discussed and shared with staff through staff communications and staff meetings.

People and their relatives told us the service worked very closely with other agencies and health professionals in order to meet people's specific needs. One relative told us, “[management] ring to see if the carer`s have been and they also come out to check on them. The [care staff] know about [name of person] Dementia, a proper assessment was done, and they talk to us through the process. The [care staff] lift [name of person] gently, straighten them in bed, talk to them and are very careful. I know all the carer`s that come and feel that they are trustworthy. They wear masks, gloves and an apron.”

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health conditions and needs. Staff told us changes to people's health and well-being were communicated. We noted staff worked alongside other agencies to provide person centred care. From records seen, we could see the provider had processes in place which enabled staff to work closely with other agencies such as local authorities, district nurses and occupational therapists. One professional told us, “They provide us with all the information needed so that we assist people”. Staff monitored people's health care needs and would inform relatives, healthcare professionals and management if there was any change in people's health needs. One relative told us, "They are good at keeping me updated, they tell me about any changes".

The local authority health professionals had no concerns about the service.

People were assessed before they used the service to ensure their needs and preferences were identified and could be met. Completed assessments were used to formulate a plan of care for each person. This provided staff with the information they needed to meet the person’s needs and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed to identify any changes in care or support required.

People were asked for their consent before they received any care and treatment. For example, before assisting people with personal care. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and acted in accordance with their wishes. People told us they felt safe, one person told us, 'I feel safe with (care staff), they know how to look after". People and their relatives knew how to raise a concern and felt able to do so, one relative told us, "I would naturally go to (the management) first and say I want to raise a complaint. I’ve not had to do it".

Staff knew how to recognise potential abuse and protect people from it. Staff had received training on how to keep people safe and described the actions they would take where people were at risk of harm. One staff member told us, “If I saw any type of abuse, I would protect the person and report what had happened to the seniors or manager.” Another staff member told us, “If I was unhappy with how a safeguarding issue had been dealt with, I would contact CQC, the police and local authority.” Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and had some basic knowledge of the Act.

Risk to people had been appropriately managed. There were robust risk assessments in place to guide staff on how they should support people safely. These included risks associated with the environment. Risk management plans contained information to keep people safe. For example, people who had a visual impairment had risk assessments with detailed instructions for staff to follow to keep those people safe. Assessments of people’s diverse needs were discussed prior to using the service. These included religion and sexuality. Care plans contained information about people’s communication needs. This meant staff could support people to express their needs and views where the person experienced difficulties. Documentation could be produced in accessible formats, such as pictorial and large print for people who required this.

People’s views were sought daily when receiving support. One relative told us, “[The management] rang and asked how things are going and if there were any problems. The manager has visited twice and took lots of information. They support [name of person] getting up and follow them on their mobility frame, which gives them confidence. The staff act in a safe manner and very well trained.”

The registered manager confirmed feedback was obtained from relatives using structured telephone calls. Feedback received was used as an opportunity to improve the service, for example additional processes were put in place to ensure people had all the required equipment in place before care commenced. There were regular meetings for staff and their views were encouraged.

Risk to people had been appropriately managed. There were robust risk assessments in place to guide staff on how they should support people safely. These included risks associated with the environment. Risk management plans contained information to keep people safe. For example, people who had a visual impairment had risk assessments with detailed instructions for staff to follow to keep those people safe. People had individual personal evacuation plans (PEEPS) to ensure they were supported safely in the case of an emergency such as a fire.

People and their relatives told us they were pleased how their environment and equipment was managed by staff. One person told us, “[Management] come and inspect every year. The staff are well trained and I feel comfortable when they assist me with my equipment”.

Staff told us they felt the environment was safe and helped to keep people free from harm. For example, staff told us equipment in place was regularly checked, and they ensured the environment was safe before leaving. One staff member told us, “Before I leave a call, I always make sure the environment is clean and free of any hazards”.

Risks to people's health and safety were assessed, including an assessment of the home environment where care was provided. We found risk assessments contained information to keep people safe. For example, for people who had a visual impairment or high risk of falls there were specific instructions for staff to follow such as ensuring any trip hazards were removed.

People and their relatives told us there was enough staff to meet people's needs. Relatives told us they were confident staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. People were supported by staff who were motivated to carry out their role. One person told us, “They know how to care for me and are well trained as they become used to me and follow my routines. Yes, they wear masks.” Another person told us “I`ve been with them for about 3 years and they give me my wash. They come on time and are never really late. Never missed. I`m very pleased to say that I get the same carer`s and we get on really well.”

Staff were positive about the providers training programme. Staff received regular supervisions where they had the opportunity to discuss their role and performance. Staff were aware how to raise a concern and told us what they would do if the need arose.

New staff had completed an induction programme which involved training and shadowing more experienced staff members. The provider had a system in place to monitor all staff and had regular and refresher training to keep them up to date with best practice. Training methods included online, face to face and competency assessments.

Relatives confirmed staff wore appropriate PPE when providing care to people.

Staff had regular IPC training and were provided with updated guidance on how to manage risks. Staff confirmed they had enough personal protective equipment (PPE). The provider had systems in place to help ensure staff used this effectively when in people’s homes.

The provider had systems, procedures and policies in place to keep updated with changes in guidance and help promote good standards of infection prevention and control (IPC). We saw IPC measures were in place at the office.

People and their relatives told us they received their medicines when they needed them.

One staff member told us, “Medicines records are very clear what we need to do. It’s all in blister packs. There will be the name and date and we know what to do repositioning. Skin charts are done and we record, any concerns we have we would pass to Team leaders who would contact the district nurse management.”

People's care plans detailed how they preferred to take their medicines including clear protocols for medicines given 'as and when' needed. Staff who administered medicines had been specifically trained to do so. The management team completed regular competency checks to ensure safe medicine procedures were followed. Medicine Administration Records (MAR’s) showed all medicines were administered correctly. Medicine count records accurately recorded the total of each medicine in stock.