Caremark (Wokingham and Bracknell)

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 68 (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.

We reviewed people’s care notes and found most of these contained person centred information. Where some records did not demonstrate this, we found the provider’s own quality assurance systems had also identified this. We shared these findings with the provider, and they took immediate action about identical care notes being used by staff.

Staff told us how they ensured care was delivered in a person-centred way. One staff said, “Whether it is needed or not it starts with their consent when [delivering] personal care or anything else…If they decide to do something I make sure I am not telling them what to do, and that they are safe. Not cause any harm, let them do exactly what they want, respect their dignity and freedom.”
 

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.

Staff told us how they worked with people to ensure their needs were met. One staff said, “If [person] needs something to help like a rail [or] shower chair, [we] contact the office they will contact occupational therapist or [social worker]. If something is needed, we have it. Never have a problem.” Staff also told us they felt there were enough staff and this supported them to provide consistency for people receiving care and treatment.

The registered manager told us how they worked in a joined-up way to support people. The manager said, “We are always in contact if there is an issue, we will call the family member and let them know we are going to contact the GP and let them know the outcome. We notify the local authority of what has been happening, also if we have to call district nurse out.”
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We did not see evidence to demonstrate ‘easy read’ formats were supplied to people or their families. This meant information may not always be tailored to individual needs and formats.
The registered manager told us they provided information for people and relatives. The manager said, “We make sure all the information is available for people using the service. We make sure the family are given access if required, as well as the social worker.” Relatives also told us they were kept up to date with information about their family members and involved in reviews. One relative said, “The family are always involved in any meeting when they crop up and we are always informed if there have been safeguarding update we need to be aware of. We have very close contact with the [service] as they know [person] well and are always keeping us in the loop about [relative].”
 

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 and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff told us how they supported people to raise concerns. One staff said, “Firstly listen what is the reason they are unhappy discuss with the person, recorded it and reported. Provide ways they can do it themselves, contact management, I can advise who to contact, supervisor or office staff and speak about it straight away.”

Relatives told us how they felt the service listened to their needs. One relative said, “I think the company has improved over recent times. They are more attentive to issues. I have no complaints with the service now. A couple of issues I did have in the past related to hand washing and the wearing /changing of gloves. They were very responsive to this concern, rectifying it immediately.”
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People told us how the service worked with them to ensure they could access treatment. One person told us, “I have had a problem with the pharmacy lately, but they have sorted it all out, gone to pick up my medication straight away.”

Staff told us they were supported with an out of hours on call service. One staff said, “If I don’t know anything I will definitely call the office. They have an on-call person we can call at any time, and they will take the call.”

The registered manager told us, “Even if we have sickness or staff have left, carers are never given work to their full capacity so we can try and allocate more calls to people when needed. There is an on-call system, they have access to the full system so they can contact carers if they are running late, carers can contact them for anything.”
 

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.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity, and inclusion. They also completed training to support people with a learning disability and autistic people. They understood how to identify and ensure people did not face discrimination.

Staff told us how they adapted their care delivery depending on people’s individual needs to ensure they experienced positive outcomes. One staff said, “One client didn’t speak English, so we had hand gestures and it was easy to talk using a chart. These days we can use a translate on our phones. Some write on pen and paper to say what they want.”

Relatives also told us staff tailored care to their family member’s needs. One relative said, “My [relative] and I are very, very happy with the carers. My [relative]…does not speak any English. This company is brilliant and provides a [foreign language] speaking carer.”
 

People were not always 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.

At the time of the assessment, no one was receiving end-of-life care. We reviewed people’s care plans and although these contained status information for ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNAR)’, we found no detailed information around future planning, preferences or wishes. This meant that people’s future care may not be delivered in line with their best interest, wishes or preferences.

The registered manager explained how they would work with professionals, people and relatives to capture this information if people were actively receiving end of life care.