Caremark (Wokingham and Bracknell)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person-centred care and safe care and treatment.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. We received mixed feedback from people.

People told us staff were kind, nice, polite, considerate and one person told us, “I am very happy with now as I’ve got my dignity.” However, people also told us if staff were changed and they did not know which staff were arriving this impacted negatively on their wellbeing causing them to be upset and affected their ability to communicate.

People told us, “[Staff] can be a bit rushed.” Professionals told us, “The Registered Manager and the directors are approachable and responsive” and the Registered Manager, “is willing to listen and learn and is appreciative of support and information shared.” However, kind, compassionate person-centred language was not always used within the care records. Within care records, inappropriate language was used, a person was referred to solely by their surname, notes were unclear and not always person focussed.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care and the support required was not consistently personalised. Some people’s records had information such as their hobbies and memories. However, the provider had not always ensured people’s care records demonstrated the importance of treating them as individuals and what support may be required. For example, within people’s care records, there was no information recorded on how to support people if they were experiencing a bad day, yet there was a specific section for this. The care plan stated what a good day and bad day looked like, such as ‘hallucinations, depressed and other disruptive behaviours.’ There was no guidance for staff around what action they would take to support people. This meant staff did not always have detailed guidance about how to tailor their support to meet people’s specific preferences and treating people as individuals.

This could put people at increased risk of harm and the records did not demonstrate treating people as individuals to meet their individual needs and preferences.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People gave us mixed feedback around choice and control. Although people also told us they felt secure and the staff were brilliant, we were also told, “We don’t really know what we can and can’t ask for”, “If I want my shower in the afternoon there is no time.”

People were not always informed if staff were running late. People told us staff did not always stay the full time or that staff arrived early.

Care notes were sometimes duplicated, were not always person centred and were task focussed.

We were not assured people were supported to have choice and control over their care, treatment and well-being.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff did not always have all the guidance necessary to anticipate and meet people’s needs quickly and in ways that reduced and mitigated people’s discomfort and distress.

People’s care records did not always guide staff to respond to people’s immediate needs. For one person, the care plan directed staff to use the internet to translate. This would not allow staff to respond to the person’s immediate needs.

For another person who had a hearing loss, if there was an emergency whilst the person was being supported, there were no plans in place regarding emergencies, information about signs, pointing and which gestures to use. Within the care plan, staff were guided to ‘reassure the client and evacuate the property.’ There was no guidance recorded to support staff on how to reassure the person who had a hearing loss.

Staff did not have guidance on how to support people with a learning disability and autistic people in the event of an emergency and how to reassure and communicate with them in line with people’s needs. This meant staff would not be able to respond immediately.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were treated well by the office, the company principles were good, and they are flexible.

Staff also told us they receive good support, can discuss issues and feel safe. However, staff were not yet fully supported and enabled by the systems in place to always deliver person-centred care.

People did not benefit from staff who have regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences, as team meetings did not document staff voice.