Caremark Brent

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Governance systems were in place to help monitor aspects of the service so that the quality of care provided could be assessed and monitored. Quality assurance systems and processes included audits looking at aspects of the running of the service. Management had oversight of the agency and promoted regular communication and openness. Staff spoke positively about management and felt able to speak up. Management sought feedback from people and relatives. They worked in partnership with others to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service. Management were open and transparent throughout the assessment process and responded to any requests positively.

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.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service. They understood the values of the organisation and had sufficient information about these values to ensure they promoted these in their work.

Management had regular meetings with the staff to discuss their work, the expectations of the organisation and any concerns they had. Staff undertook a range of training and had used this to help ensure procedures were followed and there was good quality care. There was regular communication between staff so that they could share their experiences and learn from one another.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service. They were complimentary about the manager and said they felt well supported. A member of staff said, “This company is very good and professional.” Another member of staff said, “The manager is very good. [They] are very helpful and very supportive. [They] really understand us and always handles situations nicely.” Management emphasised their commitment `to providing high-quality person-centred care and positively influencing people’s lives.

Regular meetings and communication between management and staff provided them with an opportunity to discuss the running of the service and people's individual support needs. The service operated in an open and transparent way. There was an open-door policy where the manager was available for people, relatives and staff when they were needed. There were effective systems in place to support this.

Staff told us they knew how to speak up if they had concerns or something went wrong. They felt the manager and the organisation supported them and listened to them.

Management operated an open-door policy and welcomed feedback from staff. Staff were able to discuss issues at one-to-one meetings and team meetings. There were procedures for responding to concerns and to support staff to feel confident speaking up. Systems were in place for staff to raise anonymous concerns.

Staff spoke positively about working at the agency and said that their diversity needs were met. Staff were supported with flexible working conditions, felt discrimination would be challenged and had opportunities to celebrate their diversity.

The agency had systems to help ensure staff were treated well and ensure they had development opportunities. Policies and procedures were in place for workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. These were implemented through recruitment practices, training, and support for staff.

A management structure was in place and staff had roles and responsibilities. There were reporting arrangements in place. Staff spoke positively about the management of the service. A member of staff told us, “The manager handles situations calmly. [They] are professional.” Another member of staff said, “The manager and all staff are supportive.”

Systems were in place to assess and monitor governance. Audits and checks were carried out to monitor the running and efficiency of the service to help identify deficiencies and drive improvements. Audits and checks were carried out by management and also the head office. This provided a further layer of checks to help ensure deficiencies were identified. Whilst some audits carried out were comprehensive, we found that these did not always identify issues with regards to some aspects of the service. For example, audits did not identify issues we raised in respect of risk assessments and recording in MARs. We raised this with management who advised that they would immediately review and amend their audits to ensure they consistently identified all shortfalls and take appropriate action.

Relatives we spoke with were confident the manager and staff would make referrals to other agencies if needed.

We did not receive any feedback from external partners as part of this assessment.

Systems were in place to help encourage good working relationships with health care professionals. These relationships helped to support people to receive joined up care.

The manager told us they were committed to the continuous improvement of the service and emphasised the importance of promoting a culture of learning and development. Staff had been involved in reflecting on their work and were given feedback to help improve their practice through supervision sessions and spot checks.

Processes enabled the service to use information from audits, feedback and care plan reviews to make positive changes. They had plans for developing the service in the future.