We carried out a review of the data available to us about Forever Good Care Ltd T/A Caremark Merton 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 Forever Good Care Ltd T/A Caremark Merton, you can give feedback on this 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
At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People using the service told us they were treated in a respectful and caring manner by regular staff members who supported them safely and effectively.
People were supported by staff who were trained and well supported in their job roles. Staff members had been safely recruited and had received an induction to the service. They had access to supervision and were given regular opportunities to discuss their performance with the management team.
People and staff were protected from potential risk of harm as the service had identified and assessed any risks to them and reviewed these on a regular basis. Staff understood how to help protect people from the risk of abuse. The agency had procedures in place to report any safeguarding concerns to the local authority.
Medicines were administered in a safe way. Staff received training and followed safe procedures for administering medicines.
Staff had received training in the MCA (Mental Capacity Act) and understood the importance of gaining people’s consent before assisting them.
The service completed detailed assessments of people’s needs and these were used to inform the care plan for each person. The service kept people’s needs under review and made changes as required.
People and their relatives felt able to raise any concerns or complaints. There was a procedure in place for people to follow if they wanted to raise any issues.
The service was well led. The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and made changes to improve the service provided when required. Staff and people who used the service found the management team approachable and responsive.
This inspection took place on 22 October 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice to give them time to become available for the inspection. At the last inspection on 12 and 22 May 2015 we found the provider was breaching the regulation in relation to medicines management while all other regulatory requirements we checked, were being met. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach.
We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their action plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements and had addressed the area where improvement was required. We found the provider had taken all the necessary action to improve the service in respect of the breach we found.
This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Forever Good Care Ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Forever Good Care Ltd, trading as Caremark (Merton), provides personal care and support to people in their own homes who have a variety of needs, including older people and people with physical and mental health needs. There were 13 people using the service at the time of our inspection.
The service did not have a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, the managing director of the service had applied to CQC to become the registered manager and was awaiting the outcome of their application.
The provider had improved the way they managed people’s medicines. Records showed people had received their medicines as prescribed and systems were in place for the provider to check this. Staff had received refresher training in how to manage people’s medicines safely. The manager ensured the expected records were in place to inform staff what people’s medicines were for and any side effects and contra-indications to look out for as part of keeping people safe.
This inspection took place on 12 and 22 May 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice to give them time to become available for the inspection. This was the first inspection of this service since they registered with CQC on 14 March 2014.
Forever Good Care Ltd, trading as Caremark (Merton), provides personal care and support to people in their own homes who have a variety of needs, including older people and people with physical and mental disabilities. There were 11 people using the service at the time of our inspection.
The service did not have a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Since the previous registered manager left the service several managers had worked for short periods at the service and the managing director told us she would likely apply to become the registered manager as she had effectively been managing the service for some time.
The provider did not always manage people’s medicines safely. Records showed people had not always received medicines as prescribed and checking systems to identify this and ensure people were safe were inadequate. You can see the action we told the provider to take at the back of the report.
The service managed risks to people well, identifying and assessing risks and putting suitable management plans in place for care workers to follow to keep people safe. People were involved in the risk assessment and care planning process and their views as to how they wished for their care to be delivered and what was important to them were recorded.
People felt safe and care workers received training in how to recognise if people were being abused or neglected and how to report this to keep people safe through induction training and ongoing training during their employment. People felt comfortable raising any concerns or complaints with management and were confident they would be dealt with appropriately.
The agency had suitable systems to check care workers before they were recruited to work with people using the service. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and care workers received effective support to carry out their roles through induction, training supervision and appraisal.
People received appropriate support including with their health needs and with eating and drinking.
Care workers were caring and treated people with dignity and respect and knew the people they were supporting well. Care workers obtained people’s consent before they carried out tasks such as personal care and they supported people to be as independent as they wanted to be.
The provider had a range of systems to monitor and assess the quality of the service including gathering the views of people who used the service and care workers. The provider communicated well with people who used the service and care workers and involved them in the running of the agency.