Archived: Caremark Swindon

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. This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 39 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Information within care and support plans did not always contain information which supported the delivery of person-centred care. We found 3 people’s care and support plans contained identical information about how to support people with their health needs, and there was no recorded information about what healthy living meant for each person. Additionally, there was limited information about people’s social, cultural and religious preferences. However, people’s daily records evidenced that people were receiving person-centred care from staff, such as staff offering people choices of meals in line with their preferences, such as a cooked breakfast.

The NI gave us some examples how they supported a person with care integration. They told us, “A family came to us in desperate need of home care for their mother who had dementia. The [person’s] elderly husband was her carer and couldn’t cope any more. The challenge was to get the lady to accept care and for the husband to have trust in a care company. Over several visits we gained the trust of the lady and her husband. The relationships grew between the customer and care staff. The lady has now moved out of area to be closer to her family. Such was the relationship that the customer was keen for the staff to visit and was upset about moving away.” People and their relatives felt there was continuity of care between organisations.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had an Accessible Information Standards (AIS) policy in place, which stated, ‘…everyone involved in the customer’s care and support will know how to communicate effectively with that customer.’ However, we found one person’s care plan did not contain any information about communication preferences. Other people’s care plans also contained limited information about communication preferences. For example, some people’s care plans stated, ‘I can verbally communicate’, with no other detail.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There was no process in place for the provider to regularly seek feedback from people and the NI explained this was completed on an ad-hoc basis. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about them feeling listened to. One person told us they had raised a complaint which they felt had been “brushed under the carpet.” There had been two recorded complaints within the last 12 months, and appropriate actions had not been taken following one of these. We found some areas of this complaint had not been fully addressed and staff were not informed of areas to improve to reduce the risks of this re-occurring. This went against the provider’s complaint policy, which stated, ‘Speak to any staff involved about the outcomes and how this may affect them.’’ Staff did not feel confident concerns would be acted upon. However, relatives we spoke with told us they either had no complaints or felt their complaints had been acted upon appropriately.

People told us they were supported to access the services they needed. The service had an effective process in place to ensure people could access what they needed. We saw examples of where the provider had taken steps to ensure people had access to the equipment and services needed. Staff told us people had access to other professionals they needed access to, such as the GP.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. One person told us they felt discriminated against because of their condition, and felt this had not been addressed by the provider. People did not always have their specific protected characteristics recorded and therefore these may not have been known or respected by the staff supporting them. Staff had not received training in equality, diversity and inclusion. However, other people and relatives we spoke with raised no concerns in relation to this.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s care and support plans did not include any information about planning for their future, including their end of life wishes. Staff told us they had not received any training in end-of-life care. One staff member told us they supported a person at the end of their life but told us, “There’s no training for palliative care.” We reviewed staff training records which confirmed this.