We carried out a review of the data available to us about Caremark (Spelthorne and Runnymede) 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 Caremark (Spelthorne and Runnymede), you can give feedback on this 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.
Caremark (Spelthorne and Runnymede) provides care and support to people in their own homes. The service supported 14 people at the time of our inspection, some of whom were living with dementia.
The service is owned and operated by Ms Fawz Elfadel, who is referred to in this report as ‘the provider’. The manager had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager of the service. Like registered providers, registered managers 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.
People felt safe when staff provided their care. They told us they could rely on their care workers. People said their care workers had never missed a visit and the agency contacted them to let them know if a care worker was running late. The provider had identified those people most at risk if their care was interrupted and had developed plans to prioritise the delivery of their care in the event of an emergency.
Staff were aware of their responsibilities if they suspected abuse and how to report their concerns. Risk assessments had been carried out to ensure that people receiving care and the staff supporting them were kept safe. Where an incident or accident had occurred, there was a record of how the event had occurred and what action could be taken to prevent a recurrence. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. The provider carried out pre-employment checks to ensure they employed suitable people to work at the agency. People who received support with medicines told us this aspect of their care was managed safely.
People received their care from regular care workers who knew their needs well. New care workers were introduced to people by the provider before they began to provide their care.
The provider understood the importance people placed on having regular care workers and ensured people received a consistent service from familiar staff.
Care workers had access to the training and support they needed. Care workers attended an induction when they joined the agency and shadowed colleagues until the provider was confident in their ability to provide people’s care safely and effectively. The provider had introduced the Care Certificate for staff, a nationally recognised set of standards that care workers should demonstrate in their practice. The provider said all staff would be expected to achieve this award in time.
People’s care was provided in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood the importance of consent and people told us their consent to care was sought on a day-to-day basis. People were encouraged to make choices about their care and these were respected by staff.
People who received support with meal preparation were happy with this aspect of their care. They said their care workers prepared meals they enjoyed. Relatives told us staff were willing to make specific meals when requested.
Staff responded appropriately if people became unwell. People told us their care workers had helped them access medical treatment if they needed it. Relatives said staff were observant of any changes in their family member’s needs and responded appropriately if they had concerns about people’s health.
People were supported by kind and caring staff. People told us their care workers were polite, friendly and treated them and their property with respect. They said they had developed good relationships with their care workers and looked forward to their visits. Relatives told us that care workers were compassionate in their approach and sensitive to their family members’ needs.
People received a service that was responsive to their individual needs. People were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care plans and the provider reviewed plans regularly to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs and preferences. Relatives told us their family member’s care plans had been developed in a way which gave them as much choice and control over their care as possible.
People, relatives and staff benefitted from a well-managed service. People told us they were informed which staff would be visiting them and kept up to date about any changes. Relatives said communication from the agency’s office was good. They told us they could always contact the office if they needed to and said the provider responded well to requests for information.
People were asked for their views about their care and their opinions were listened to. People and their relatives said they were contacted by the manager or the provider for feedback about the service they received. They said any suggestions they made were considered and implemented where possible. People knew how to complain if they were dissatisfied.
Staff said the provider and the manager were approachable and supportive. They told us there was an open culture in which they would feel able to raise any concerns they had. The quality of care provided by staff was monitored through spot checks. Staff received feedback on their performance following these checks and any areas for improvement were discussed with them.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and the care provided by staff. The agency was subject to regular business audits and had developed an action plan to address shortfalls identified in the most recent audit. The provider also submitted quality assurance reports to the local authority which commissioned care with the agency.