We carried out a review of the data available to us about Caremark (Slough and South Bucks) 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 (Slough and South Bucks), you can give feedback on this service.
Caremark (Slough and South Bucks) is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection 39 people were being supported with personal care. The main office is based in Windsor.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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 were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. However, management did not always complete mental capacity assessments and document all best interest decisions. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.
People were overwhelmingly positive about the care and support received. Comments received included, “I like Caremark's service. Very good and the carers are very helpful", The care has been outstanding, appreciate the flexibility when needed", "Caremark are very helpful, good and caring" and "All the carers are lovely and treat me well. Thank you for all they are doing for me." Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to deliver personalised care.
People and those who represented them said they felt safe from harm and were given information about what to do if they felt unsafe. Staff had a good understanding and awareness of abuse and had attended the relevant training. Staff were aware of risks to people’s well-being and how to manage them. There were enough staff to support people to stay safe and meet their needs. Safe recruitment practices were in place to ensure people were cared for by staff with good character. There was safe administration of medicines as the service followed relevant national guidance. People said staff followed good hygiene practices and training records confirmed staff had attended the relevant training.
People and those who represented them felt staff were skilled and experienced to look after them. Staff were appropriately inducted and spoke positively about their training and supervision. People received appropriate support to maintain their nutrition and hydration needs. The service worked in partnership with other health and social care agencies to achieve good health outcomes for people.
People and those who represented them said the care received met their specific needs. Assessments showed planning of care was focussed on people’s whole life, their wishes and needs on the grounds of protected equality characteristics. People said they were involved in decisions about their care. The service helped to protect people from the risk of social isolation.
The service was compliant with Accessible Information Standard by making sure the communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss was flagged; shared and communicated. Regular reviews of care ensured staff were aware of any changes in people's circumstances and systems were in place to deal with any complaints. Discussions in relation to people’s preferences for end of life care were not always documented in people’s care records. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.
People, those who represented them, and staff felt the service was consistently well-managed. The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open and inclusive. Staff said they felt respected, valued and supported. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to evaluate accurate information about the quality and safety of the care and support that was provided. The service sought the views of people, those who represented them and staff, to understand where improvements were needed. The service developed good working partnerships to support care provision and joined up care. There was an open culture of learning from mistakes and changes were made to service delivery due to lessons learnt.
Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was good (published 20 December 2016).
The overall rating for the service remains unchanged and the service is rated good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The registered manager has been in post since August 2013. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
This is the first inspection of the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
People were happy with the care and support received. They described staff as patient, kind and friendly. Positive relationships were developed because staff knew and understood people’s histories, likes, preferences, needs, hopes and goals. This enabled the service to provide person-centred care which was reflected in care records reviewed. People were able to make and influence decisions about their care. We noted care records clearly captured people’s expressed views on how they wanted their care to be delivered.
People were protected from the risk of harm because staff were fully aware of their responsibilities in regards to safeguarding. Safe recruitment procedures were followed and where there were identifiable risks, appropriate risk management plans were in place.
People received care from staff who were competently trained and skilled to look after their care needs. For instance one person commented, “You can tell they’re (staff) very professional in the way they carry out their work.” This was supported by our discussions with staff and reviews of their training, supervision and appraisal records. Staff worked in line with the law when providing care and support to people who were unable to make specific decisions. Care records showed good examples of staff working in collaboration with other health professionals to ensure good health outcomes for people.
People and their relatives were able to contribute to the assessment and planning of their care. They spoke positively about their interaction with staff before taking on care packages and confirmed they received appropriate information. One person commented, “There was my mum, dad and a supervisor. They really got the care package right.” This ensured the care and support delivered reflected what people said they wanted. People’s care needs were reviewed for their effectiveness and changes to care were made if required.
The service supported people to follow their interests and to take part in social activities of their choice. One person commented, “If I decide I want to go somewhere, as long as I give them (staff) notice they will arrange it. I like going shopping.” This meant their social needs were met.
People gave positive feedback about the service and felt it was well-led. This was supported by staff who were positive about the management and the leadership of the service. Regular staff team meetings took place in order to ensure people’s welfare and safety was protected, staff understood their responsibilities and best practice was shared. We found quality assurance systems in place ensured the service’s audit and governance systems were effective.
We looked at people's records and spoke with staff. Documentation about support and care needs were detailed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs. Care was planned with the involvement of the people who use the service and their relatives.
Systems were in place to identify abuse, take swift and correct actions to eliminate it and report to appropriate professionals. People who use the service and/or their families told us they felt their relatives were safe with the staff. People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.
A system of staff supervision and appraisal, and day to day communications was in place to support workers. There was training available to support and enable staff to deliver care and treatment to people safely and to an appropriate standard.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. Documentation we looked at showed feedback from people using the service and/or their families and quality monitoring visits were acted upon to improve the service. There were processes in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.