Caremark Elmbridge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People received safe care and treatment from staff who understood their needs and followed healthcare guidance from professionals. Staff knew how to safely support people around their individual risks and how to protect people from abuse and neglect. Staff received appropriate training and were recruited safely. People’s care visits were planned, and their completion was overseen by managers. Staff identified improvement needs around roster planning which were not yet fully addressed by the managers at the time of this assessment.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider had clear safeguarding systems and process in place. The managers reported and investigated any safeguarding issues and worked with the local authority to address them. Staff received training in safeguarding.

Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities, how to recognise and raise concerns. One staff member said, “Safeguarding is when you protect someone from harm. It is my duty to keep [people] safe from harm and abuse. If I noticed something, I have to report to my manager. The form to complete is online which is good. The manager will investigate [the concern] and I expect there to be improvements.” Another staff member told us, “I know how to whistleblow, it is very important for people’s protection.”

People told us they felt safe with staff. One person said, “I feel very safe. They all know me well and they know my needs. I feel very comfortable and relaxed around my carers, so they are relaxed too.” Relatives said they felt confident staff treated people well and would protect them from abuse and neglect. One relative told us people receiving care were ‘completely at ease’ with staff.

People and their relatives told us staff knew their individual needs and risks and were able to provide safe support. One person said, “[Staff] are all so nice. They all know what I need, and I feel very safe with them around me. They always listen to me if I want to do something differently. I have no issues there.” Another person told us when explaining their care needs and daily routines and how staff supported them, “They use [the care equipment] safely. They knew more about it than me. I feel very safe when they are assisting me.” A relative commented, “Their systems work, and they are willing to answer questions and queries. Their documentation is very clear, and the staff seem very friendly and know instantly [person’s] needs and ask how we are.”

Staff knew people’s individual needs, how to support them safely and what to do if people’s risks changed. Staff were able to explain the risks and support needs of individual people they visited. Staff also commented, “There is a lot of good information in people’s risk assessments, and this gives me confidence to do my job well.”; “Risk assessments are done by [the registered manager]. Then when we go on site things may have changed, the person’s requirements may have changed. At this point, I will inform the manager who will reassess soon after.”; “We support people to be as independent as possible. We acknowledge that a person can be vulnerable when doing a certain activity, but we respect their wishes to do this and support them in whatever way keeps them safe. There is a certain satisfaction I get from feeling I am appreciated by the clients and knowing that I am helping them to live the life they choose.”

People’s individual risks were assessed in their electronic care plans, so staff could access information around people’s support needs when visiting them. The provider had a clear system of identifying and reviewing people’s individual risks. However, we fed back to the registered manager some risks were not always clearly assessed in people’s care plans. For example, around specific continence needs. The registered manager actioned this feedback straight after the site visit and provided evidence of completed risk assessments. Staff we spoke with were aware of those risks, hence we did not find people’s care or safety had been impacted.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The management team used an electronic monitoring system to plan and oversee completion of care visits. There was an on-call system enabling staff to report any issues. Managers took timely action to ensure people received their care as planned. New staff were recruited safely. Staff received induction and ongoing training, so they were competent to support people’s individual needs.

People told us staff visited them as planned and were competent to provide safe care. However, some people said they had raised concerns around staff not arriving for the visits on time which was since addressed and improved by the provider. One person said, “[Staff] all seem very knowledgeable.” People’s relatives commented, “It is better now, [staff] used to be late.;” “Most of the staff that come I have seen multiple times so it’s the usual group of carers.”; “[Staff] are competent. The recruitment policy must be good as the people they employ genuinely care and I can see it. My mum tells me that they are wonderful to her and so kind. If they have new staff just starting, they buddy up with another carer, so they all get to know the different clients with an established carer to make clients feel at ease.”

Staff provided mixed feedback around roster management, but all staff we spoke with felt the training they received enabled them to support people well. Some staff told us their roster was not always manageable and that caused them to be late for some visits. Other staff commented, “The office staff will cover [the care visit] if none of us are able to. Clients are located close to each other, and I definitely have time to travel from person to person. If I am running late, I notify the office. This is really helpful and reduces my stress. The manager or whoever is in the office will sort this out. Training is very good and gives me lots of confidence to do my work.;” “Everything is good, the out of hours support is great. We get a lot of training and are encouraged to do as much as possible for our development.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.