You are here

Caremark (Coventry) Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 March 2020

About the service

Caremark (Coventry) is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support for people living in their own homes. It is a franchise of Caremark, a national organisation supporting a large number of local care companies. Caremark (Coventry) supports children, younger adults and older people with diverse needs

including, dementia, learning disabilities, sensory impairment, physical disabilities, drug and alcohol misuse and eating disorders. At the time of our inspection approximately 260 people received care and support from this service.

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

Most people felt safe with staff who visited them and were satisfied with the way in which their care and support was provided. However, some people and relatives were concerned care calls did not take place at the times they expected, from staff they knew. Action was being taken to address this. Staff knew how to

keep people safe and had the time they needed to ensure people's needs were met safely. People told us they received their medicines as prescribed. However, records completed by staff to confirm this required improvement.

The providers quality monitoring systems and processes were not consistently effective. Action was planned to address this. Feedback from people, relatives and staff had been used to begin to improve the service and people's experiences. The management and staff team worked in partnership with other professionals

to improve outcomes for people.

People's needs were assessed, and staff understood how to provide care in line with people's lifestyle choices, religious and cultural beliefs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of 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 practice.

Staff received comprehensive training and the management support they needed to effectively fulfil their roles. The management team and staff understood and worked within the requirements and principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People's care was provided by staff who were kind and respectful. Staff knew the people they visited with whom they had developed positive relationships. People's privacy and dignity was upheld and their independence promoted. Staff felt valued and supported by the management team.

Staff understood and used people's preferred methods of communication to ensure people were involved in planning and making day to day decisions about their care. Information about the service was available in a range of different formats. Most care plans informed staff how to deliver personalised care. Complaints were managed in line with the providers complaint procedure.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was good (published 21 July 2017). Since this inspection, the service has moved premises. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating of good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our methodology. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 3 March 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 3 March 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 3 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 3 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below


Requires improvement

Updated 3 March 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.