We carried out a review of the data available to us about Serenta Homecare on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Serenta Homecare, you can give feedback on this service.
At the time of this inspection, 34 people were receiving support with the regulated activity personal care. Twenty-four care workers were employed.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Our last inspection took place on 25 and 26 January 2016. The service was rated Good.
This inspection took place on 23, 24 and 25 July 2018. We gave the registered provider 48 hours’ notice of our inspection to make sure the registered manager, some staff and some people receiving support would be available to meet and speak with us.
We received very positive views from people about the support provided to them or their family member. Without exception, people told us they felt safe and their care workers were respectful. People told us they received a consistent and reliable service that met their needs. Staff demonstrated they were highly motivated and offered care and support that was compassionate and kind.
We found systems were in place to administer people’s medicines safely.
We found there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made. Assessments identified risks to people, and these were regularly reviewed to ensure people's safety.
Robust recruitment procedures were in operation and promoted people’s safety.
Staff were provided with relevant training, supervision and appraisal for development and support.
There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The registered provider’s policies and systems supported this practice. People had consented to receiving care and support from Serenta homecare.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet, which considered their culture, needs and preferences, so their health was promoted and choices could be respected. Access to healthcare professionals was supported.
People said they could speak with their care workers or the registered manager if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.
The registered provider and registered manager were excellent role models. We found an extremely effective system was in place to monitor service delivery. The staff, registered provider and the director displayed a strong commitment to providing high quality care to people. They had innovative ways of promoting a positive culture and involving people in the service. The registered provider demonstrated partnership working to improve and develop the service.
At the time of this inspection Serenta Homecare was supporting 44 people whose support included the provision of the regulated activity ‘personal care’.
There was a registered manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Our last full inspection at Serenta Homecare took place on 28 April 2014. The service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.
This inspection took place on 25 and 26 January 2016 and short notice was given. We told the registered manager two working days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available.
Without exception, people supported by the service and their relatives spoke very positively about Serenta Homecare. They told us they felt (their relative was) safe with the care staff from Serenta Homecare, and staff were respectful. People told us the support provided met their needs and the care staff were kind, caring and polite. People spoken with said they had regular care staff that they knew well. They knew which care staff would be visiting to support them and care staff always arrived when they should and stayed the full length of time agreed.
We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.
Staff recruitment procedures were thorough and ensured people’s safety was promoted.
Staff were provided with relevant induction and training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Staff understood their role and what was expected of them. They were happy in their work, motivated and proud to work at the service. Staff were confident in the way the service was managed.
The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.
Each person had a support plan that accurately reflected their needs and wishes so that these could be respected. Support plans had been reviewed to ensure they remained up to date.
People supported, and their relatives or representatives said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and felt they would be listened to.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to. People using the service and their relatives had been asked their opinion via surveys and the results of these surveys had been audited to identify any areas for improvement.
We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led? We gathered information from people using the service by telephoning them.
We telephoned thirteen people supported by Serenta Homecare, and managed to speak with eight people and three relatives of supported people. In addition we visited two supported people in their own home to gather their opinions.
We spoke with the registered manager, the operations manager and four care staff employed at Serenta Homecare.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
People supported by the agency, or their representatives told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.
People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
We found that risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant that people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
The scheduling of visits was organised to ensure people's preferences and identified needs were taken into account. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them and their representatives, and they were involved in writing their support plans. People said that their support plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.
Staff were provided with training to ensure they had the skills to meet people's needs. Managers' were accessible to staff for advice and support. Staff were provided with formal individual supervision and appraisals at an appropriate frequency to ensure they were adequately supported and their performance was appraised.
Is the service caring?
We asked people using the service and their relatives for their opinions about the support provided. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'they are wonderful. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them. They are reliable, kind people', 'they know me and I know them. They always come when they should and I know every one of my carers. They are brilliant. They give me the help I need and that makes such a difference' and 'they (staff) are very good. They go the extra mile. They are lovely girls (staff). I can't fault them, and I would tell you if I could'.
When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported and had a detailed knowledge of the person's interests, personality and support needs.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People spoken with said they had never had to make a complaint but knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We found that appropriate procedures were in place to respond to and record any complaints received. People could be assured that systems were in place to investigate complaints and take action as necessary.
Records seen showed people had been listened to and the agency had responded to their views. One person told us the days and times of the support they were provided with was flexible, and staff worked around their relatives work patterns. This showed the service listened and responded to people's needs.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system, and systems were in place to ensure any issues were identified promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the agency. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.