Caremark (Barnsley)

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People were provided with individualised and person centred care. Records evidenced people were happy with their care and people told us they were happy with the support they received from staff. People were given the opportunity to feedback and make suggestions about their care. A relative said, “We have had surveys. The manager visited us to make sure everything was ok.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were supported by a core team of staff, at the time of our inspection agency staffing was not used at the service, meaning people knew staff well. People, professionals and staff could access care records, where appropriate to enable a continuity of care for people. Care records were appropriately stored in line with confidentiality and GDPR requirements. We saw positive comments from professionals working with the service and partners told us the service had improved.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had communication care plans in place, these could be improved by adding more detailed guidance for staff. One person was supported to use a communication board, a tool which assisted them to make decisions, and another person received support from staff to read any correspondence. The registered manager had implemented a social media site for people and relatives, to share celebrations and information about the service. This included 'meet the team', any changes happening, activities, reviews of the service and celebrations.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care. A staff member said, “I try to encourage people to do tasks by themselves and be independent. I give people choice about their care, routines and activities.” Where people had raised concerns or complaints these were appropriately investigated and action taken to address these. Complaints records could be further improved, to ensure the registered manager could have oversight of these with ease. People had been involved in feedback surveys and records evidenced people were mostly happy with their care. Whilst we found action had been taken following people giving their feedback, records required some improvements, to ensure it could be evidenced what was done in response to these surveys. A person said, “If I have anything to raise, I say it. I made a complaint, and it got sorted.”

People had access to external professionals as needed. Records evidenced staff had contacted emergency healthcare services and GP's where required. Relatives told us they were updated about any changes to their loved one’s health needs and any incidents which occurred. A person said, “Staff message my daughter (to inform of health needs).” Another person said, “Staff have rung the Dr for me.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Some people received care packages which involved staff supporting them with activities and accessing the community. Records evidenced staff assisted people to maintain community links and their independence. For example, staff supported some people to do their weekly food shopping and supported other people to visit friends and family. Staff supported people going into town on public transport and going out for walks. A social media site included information about how people could keep themselves well and safe, including information about how to protect themselves from winter bugs.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.  Some improvements were required to ensure staff were obtaining, recording and working towards people's future goals and aspirations.

At the time of our inspection no one was receiving support at the end of their life. Staff were trained in regard to end-of-life care and the registered manager understood their responsibilities should this be required in the future.