Background to this inspection
Updated
24 September 2022
The inspection
We carried out this performance review and assessment under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act). We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements of the regulations associated with the Act and looked at the quality of the service to provide a rating.
Unlike our standard approach to assessing performance, we did not physically visit the office of the location. This is a new approach we have introduced to reviewing and assessing performance of some care at home providers. Instead of visiting the office location we use technology such as electronic file sharing and video or phone calls to engage with people using the service and staff.
Inspection team
The inspection team consisted of one inspector and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
Registered Manager
This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the service is small and people are often out and we wanted to be sure there would be people at home to speak with us.
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 (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection
We spoke with four people who used the service, 11 relatives and five members of staff including the registered manager, field care supervisor, care manager and care staff.
We reviewed a range of records. This included five people’s care records and various staff records. We looked at and reviewed multiple documents submitted by the provider. These included policies and other information relevant to the running of the service.
This performance review and assessment was carried out without a visit to the location’s office. We used technology such as video calls to enable us to engage with people using the service and staff, and electronic file sharing to enable us to review documentation.
Inspection activity started on 2 August and ended on 31 August 2022.
Updated
24 September 2022
About the service
Forever Good Care Ltd T/A Care Mark Merton is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes and flats. At the time of our inspection, 32
people were receiving personal care and support.
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
We received mixed feedback about staff punctuality. Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs although some people had experienced delayed calls. Comments received, “Yes as far as I know, they have enough carers” and “Yes always have double ups, although the carers sometimes arrive at different times.” People were supported safely.
We received mixed feedback about staff’s practice to minimise the risk of contamination and spread of disease. People using the service and their relatives told us staff did not consistently and correctly wear masks when they visited people. However, they said staff wore gloves and aprons when preparing food and providing personal care. The provider explained staff followed guidance and worked in line with the provider’s policies and people’s preferences.
Staff knew the types and signs of abuse and the action required to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm. Comments we received included, “[Person] feels safe with [staff]”; “Oh yes I do feel safe with the agency” and “Bruises, lack of food in the fridge, falls and an untidy house can be signs of abuse. I will report to the [registered] manager such things.” Staff understood their responsibility to identify and report suspected abuse to keep people safe. Risk management plans enabled staff to provide care in a way that minimises harm to people.
People were supported to take their medicines safely. The provider followed safe recruitment practices including checks on new staff’s suitability to provide care. Staff received support, training and supervisions to ensure they were appropriately skilled to meet people’s needs.
People told us staff were kind and caring. Comments we received included, “[Staff] are respectful” and “Very kind and friendly.” Staff provided care in a manner that respected people’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality. Where possible, staff encouraged people to undertake tasks they were able to do for themselves and to make choices about their daily living.
People’s needs were assessed and staff delivered care appropriate to them. People accessed healthcare services when required. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint about any aspect of their care that fell short of the expected standards. The majority of people felt their concerns were resolved in a timely manner.
Checks and audits were undertaken on the quality of care and shortfalls were addressed. People, staff and relatives were encouraged to share their views of the service. They told us the registered manager considered their ideas when making improvements to the service. People benefitted from the close partnership working of the provider with other agencies and health and social care professionals.
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.
This was an ‘inspection using remote technology’. This means we did not visit the office location and instead used technology such as electronic file sharing to gather information, and video and phone calls to engage with people using the service as part of this performance review and assessment.
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 the service under the previous provider was good, published on 5 December 2017.
Why we inspected?
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk