Seva Care is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own home. At the time of this inspection visit they provided 218 people with personal care.

At the last comprehensive inspection on the 10 August 2016 we rated the service as good in the five key questions. Is the service Safe, Effective, Responsive, Effective, Caring and Well led. At this inspection we found improvement was required in Well led, with the overall rating remaining as ‘Good'

Following a visit from the local authority commissioners to the service in October 2018, the local authority stopped referring people to the service because improvements were required. The provider is currently working with the commissioners to make those improvements.

This inspection took place on the 14 January 2019 and was announced. We told the provider we were coming so they could arrange to be there and arrange for staff to be available to talk with us about the service.

The provider’s quality monitoring system included asking people for their views about the quality of the service. The systems in place for monitoring the service provided, had not identified the shortfalls found during this inspection and improvement was required.

A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

People who used the service felt safe with staff that supported them. Procedures were in place to keep people safe and manage identified risks to people’s care. Staff completed training in safeguarding adults and understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and harm. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure they were suitable to support people who used the service.

People who required support to take medicines were supported by staff that had been trained to administer them safely. Staff used protective clothing, such as disposable gloves and aprons when providing personal care, to reduce the risk of infection being passed from one person to another.

People had an assessment completed at the start of their service to make sure staff could meet their care and support needs. There were enough trained staff to allocate all the visits people required and to meet people's needs safely. When needed, arrangements were in place to support people to have enough to eat and drink and remain in good health.

People's right to make their own decisions about their care were supported by managers and staff who understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Staff respected decisions people made about their care and gained permission before they assisted people.

People told us staff were kind and treated them with respect. Staff we spoke with knew the people they visited well, and spoke about people in a caring and considerate manner.

People said staff stayed long enough to provide the care agreed in their care plan and did not rush them. Care plans were personalised and provided information for staff about people’s care needs and the details of what they needed to do on each call. The registered manager and office staff were in regular contact with people, or their relatives, to check the care provided was what people needed and expected.

People knew how to complain, and information about making a complaint was available for people. People knew who the managers were and felt they listened to them and dealt with any concerns they had.

Staff felt supported to do their work effectively and said the managers were approachable and available. There was an ‘ou

This inspection took place on 7 July 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Sevacare Kingstanding is a large service which provides personal care and support to over two hundred people living in their own homes.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

We last inspected the service on 10 February 2014; the provider had met all the legal requirements.

People received a safe service. Procedures were in place to ensure that people received a service that was safe; staff followed the procedures to ensure the risk of harm to people was reduced. The risk of harm to people receiving a service was assessed and managed appropriately; this ensured that people received care and support in a safe way. Where people received support from staff with taking prescribed medicines, this was done in a way that ensured the risk to people was minimised.

People received care and support from staff that were trained to be effective in their role. People’s rights were protected and they had choices in their daily lives. People were supported to maintain their diet and health. People’s privacy, dignity independence and individuality was respected and promoted at all times.

People received care from staff that were suitably recruited, supported and in sufficient numbers to ensure people’s needs were met.

People were able to raise their concerns or complaints and processes were in place to ensure complaints were investigated and responded to, so people could be confident they would be listened to and their concerns taken seriously.

People received a good quality service. The management of the service was stable, with processes in place to monitor the quality of the service. People were asked to comment on the quality of service they received and the information was used to improve the service.

During the inspection we sent questionnaires to 61 people that used the service and their relatives. A total of 16 questionnaires were returned to us, we received eight responses from people that used the service and eight relatives. We spoke with a care service director, the manager and seventeen care workers.

Overall everyone that used the service and their relatives felt that their needs were being met. One person told us, “Everything that I require on a daily basis is done with respect and dignity.” We found that care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Two people that returned the questionnaires commented that not all staff were trained as they should be. However, all the evidence that we saw indicated that staff received the training and support they needed to enable them to provide the service.

We found that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We found that people were cared for by staff that were suitably recruited to undertake their role, to ensure that people were protected.

Overall people that used the service and their relatives that responded to the questionnaires felt that they were receiving a good quality service. One person told us, “I do not think there is anything else they could do better. Incidentally my husband who is the patient is 82 years of age and I, his wife am 84 years old the carers are concerned about me and keep telling me to take things easily. That is why I think they are good, kind and helpful.” We found that the provider had an effective system to monitor the quality of service that people received.

Most of the people we spoke with who received personal care from the agency were happy with the quality of care received. One person said “I couldn’t wish for anything better.” One person expressed concern over the attitude of some staff, although they said they had not spoken with the agency manager about this.

People told us they were happy with the support they received and that it met their needs. One person said “They do what I need them to do.” One relative told us the agency had provided care for the person using the service before and “we wanted the same guys” to provide care this time. They said the agency had been able to arrange some of the same staff to provide care again. One person said the staff were “brilliant.”

People said that if there were any problems, they were confident their opinions would be listened to. One person said they had asked for a change of staff in the past and this had happened.

During this inspection three people that used the service and one relative agreed to speak with us. We also spoke with the manager and three care workers.

People that we spoke with said that they and their relatives were involved in agreeing and planning their care. We found that people’s views and experiences were taken into account in how the service was delivered.

People told us that their needs were being met. One person told us, “I have no worries about the service. They come on time and are flexible and reliable.” We found that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People told us that they felt safe with the staff that cared for them. We found that the provider had systems in place to respond to allegations of abuse.

People told us that they were treated well by the staff that supported them. One person told us, “The staff saved my life when I wasn’t well. I couldn’t ask for a better well trained staff.” We found that people were cared for by staff that were trained and supported to do their job.

People told us that they had no concerns about the care that they received. People using the service and their relatives were confident that should they raise a concern it would be listened to and addressed. We found that clear systems were in place to investigate and respond to people’s concerns.