Background to this inspection
Updated
29 August 2019
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
This inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats and specialist housing.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
During the inspection
We spoke with two people who used the service and two relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with three members of staff including the provider, registered manager, and a senior care worker.
We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.
Updated
29 August 2019
About the service
Caremark provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of inspection they provided a personal care service to 13 people aged 65 and over. They provided visits to people for a minimum of 30 minutes and provided 24-hour care to support people. The service provided care and support to people in Surrey.
CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People continued to receive safe care. One person said, “I feel extremely safe when I am with the staff. They really look after me.” People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm by staff who knew how to identify and report any concerns. People were supported by a staff team that had been recruited safely. Measures to manage any risk were assessed and appropriately put in place. People received medicines as prescribed and staff knew how to maintain good infection control.
People were supported to have maximum choice in their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practise. People were supported to have a balanced diet and various professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure people were receiving the right care and treatment. People received effective support from staff who were suitably trained, skilled and experienced.
People told us staff were caring and kind. Family members said, “Dad thought [staff member] was kind and [staff member] was great on Friday, very chatty which he liked and the level of care and kindness has been much improved.” People’s privacy and dignity were promoted, and their choices respected. People and their relatives continued to be involved in decisions regarding their care. Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible. The staff understood the importance of maintaining people’s confidentiality.
People continued to receive care that was planned to reflect their individual needs. The provider and staff recorded all relevant information in people’s care plans. Any changes to a person’s care and support were updated as soon as possible. The provider had a clear complaints process. People and relatives told us they had not needed to make a complaint but knew how to should they need to. This was supported with the provider not receiving any complaints in the past 12 months. The provider regularly received positive feedback from people, their relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. People’s choices for their end of life care were recorded to ensure people’s choices could be respected.
People’s views were considered to improve the service, this was obtained through surveys, spot checks and phone calls. A number of methods were used to monitor the quality of service people received. The management team had plans around continuous improvements and improving the standards. There was an open and transparent culture where people’s opinions were valued.
The provider and registered manager ensured they met the regulatory responsibilities including requirement to display the rating and to return the Provider Information Return (PIR) to the Care Quality Commission.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 24 January 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.