The inspection took place on 4 October 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to speak with us.

Sevacare Hinckley provides personal care and support to adults with a variety of needs living in their own homes. This included older people, people with a sensory impairment, people with physical disabilities, people living with dementia and younger adults. At the time of the inspection there were 130 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was due to move to a new role within the organisation. A new manager had been appointed and was applying to become the registered manager.

People were protected from the risk of harm at the service because staff had undertaken training to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns. They had a good understanding about what safeguarding meant and how to report it. The provider dealt with accidents and incidents appropriately and reviewed these to try and prevent reoccurrences.

Risks to people’s well-being had been assessed. For example, where people required support with moving from one place to another, staff had training and guidance available to them. We found that where someone had been identified as being at risk of falls a specific risk assessment had not been completed. The provider told us that they would complete a risk assessment where someone was at risk of falls.

We found there were enough staff to support people safely during our visit. However, we found that staff did not always arrive at the correct time for their visit. Staff had been checked for their suitability before starting work.

People’s medicines were handled safely and were given to them in accordance with their prescriptions. People’s GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice whenever necessary. We found that some staff had not always signed when medicine had been given. However, they had recorded information in people’s daily notes to show if medicine had been administered.

Staff received appropriate support through an induction and regular supervision. There was on-going training to provide and update staff on safe ways of working.

People chose their own food and drink and were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Staff prompted people to contact healthcare services when required to promote their well-being.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before delivering their support.

People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected.

People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. Skills that people had were maintained. Staff knew people’s preferences and had involved people in planning their own support.

People knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a complaints policy in place that was available for people and their relatives.

People and their relatives had contributed to the planning and review of their support. People had support plans that had included information about their likes, dislikes and history. Staff knew how to support people based on their preferences and how they wanted to be supported.

People, their relatives and staff felt the manager was approachable. The service was led by a registered manager and a manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulat

We contacted over 60 people who use the service both by telephone and by the use of a questionnaire. We were also able to speak with the management team and four care workers. This enabled us to gather peoples’ thoughts of the service being provided.

We were told that the service involved people in deciding what care and support they needed and we found that comprehensive initial assessments had taken place. This showed us that the service assured itself that the individual needs of each person could be met, prior to their care package commencing.

There was a robust recruitment process in place and all new support workers were required to attend a comprehensive induction and training programme. This ensured that they were suitable and appropriately trained to work with the people who use the service.

People told us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received. They told us that they were treated with dignity and respect and the support workers who supported them were kind and helpful. One person told us: “The regular carers arrive on time and treat me with respect.” A relative spoken with explained: “They used to rush my mother, but when I complained it got better and everything is fine now”.

The inspection took place on 1 and 2 October 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The service provided care and support to adults with a variety of needs living in their own homes. This included people living with dementia, learning disabilities, and physical disabilities. At the time of inspection there were approximately 141 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager that was recorded on the records held by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), however this person had left the organisation, and a new manager was in post and was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. 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. The provider agreed to ask the previous registered manager to submit the paperwork to deregister from the location.

People told us that they felt safe when staff supported them and that they were provided with the care and support that met their needs.

When people started to use the service a care plan was developed that included details about their care needs and how to meet those needs. Information about people’s likes, dislikes, history and preferences were included so staff had all of the relevant information to meet people’s needs.

Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people in a safe manner. The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in these areas.

At times staff did not arrive on time for appointments to support people. People felt that they were not being rushed even though they felt that staff were very busy, They told us that the staff stayed for the time that they were supposed to.

People were supported to take their medicines by care workers who had received training in medicines management. There was an audit process in place for all medication administration records (MAR) charts that ensured that signatures were in place and if there were any gaps these were investigated.

Care workers were supported through training and supervision to be able to meet the care needs of people they supported. They undertook an induction programme when they started work at the service.

Staff told us that they sought people’s consent prior to providing their care. We saw that there were a number of consent forms in place that the service used. Where people were believed to not have the capacity to consent to their care and treatment there was no record of how the care provided had been agreed as required by the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

The service had a complaints procedure and we saw that some people had made complaints that were investigated. Some people told us that they were not aware of the complaints procedure.

The service had a new management team in place. Staff told us that the team were working together to make improvements to the service.