You are here

Caremark (Barnsley) Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

About the service

Caremark (Barnsley) is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to 170 people in their own houses and flats in Barnsley and surrounding areas at the time of the inspection. The service supported people of all ages, with different health and care needs.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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 told us they were overall satisfied with their care when they received it, that staff were appreciated, well-liked and able to adapt to their changing needs. A main and significant issue which impacted on people however was the lack of reliability in call times and staffing. The provider and registered manager were honest about their current staffing issues. These had led to the service having to hand care packages back to the local authority, as well as a stop in receiving referrals until a more reliable, safe service had been established for people.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had not always been notified of certain events in line with the provider’s legal obligations. We saw however examples of such events having been investigated appropriately by the service. At the previous inspection we found governance systems had not always ensured a good quality service. We found some improvements at this inspection. The wider service staffing issues meant progress was slower than hoped for and more time and support was needed. The consistency of good governance still needed to be improved, including aspects of quality assurance. We made a recommendation regarding this, as well as the consistent completion of staff supervisions.

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 generally supported this practice. This had been addressed since the last inspection, however we made a recommendation for further, continued improvements.

The provider was implementing a new electronic governance system, to help monitor and progress the service. A positive example of service progress made was the appointment of medication champions, which had led to improvements. We highlighted a few areas for development, to ensure clear directions were given to staff when helping people with their medicines.

However, people and staff we spoke with were consistent in their praise for the caring culture of the service, which was led by a well-respected registered manager and their office team. The registered manager was honest that taking time to find the right, quality candidates meant slower progress in recruitment, but they did not wish to compromise on this. People praised care staff who supported their independent living and daily well-being. Care staff were knowledgeable of people, their needs, as well as backgrounds, and people praised this. Care plan development was ongoing; however we saw some good examples of progress already made and people felt involved in the planning of their care.

People described care staff generally as hard-working and carrying out a good standard of care with a supportive management system in place. People’s comments included, “They are kind and a great help with everything I need for my care plan. The carers know my personal requirements which is reassuring for me and my family” and “They are the source to my limited independent life. I am very happy to recommend these so helpful and kind people.”

The service worked with a variety of professionals to promote or maintain people’s health and wellbeing, as well as to achieve positive outcomes. Further opportunities to involve people using the service and staff had been introduced with regular coffee morn

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.