You are here

Archived: Caremark (East Riding)

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 March 2014
Date of Publication: 30 April 2014
Inspection Report published 30 April 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 24 March 2014, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

People's needs were assessed regularly and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care and treatment was delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

In October 2013 the scheduled inspection of Caremark was bought forward as a result of concerns raised with us. As part of the inspection we visited people that used the service and relatives. As a result of the inspection findings in October 2013 we asked the provider to make some improvements to the service. We visited again in December 2013 to see if improvements had been made and found that although some improvements were clear, other areas still required development.

As part of the follow up visit in December 2013 we sent a satisfaction questionnaire to 60 people who used the service and 60 relatives of people who used the service. An expert by experience contacted 20 people that used the service by telephone. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of using this type of service either themselves or with a family member. The provider also sent questionnaires to over 400 people and 130 were received back. The results of this were shared with us. We found that things had improved since our previous visit.

We then revisited the service in March 2014 to look at the further improvements that had been made since our last visit. We also spoke with people who used the service over the telephone in order to gather further feedback about the support that was being delivered.

Issues had been raised previously regarding carers who were late for calls; people having a number of different carers; rotas not being supplied or shared with people; and difficulties getting in touch with the right contact at the office. The provider had put various measures in place to address these areas. A new system was now fully functional whereby the carer called in to the office system by telephone at the beginning of a call and called out at the end. This data was monitored and collected within the office and meant that it was now possible to track visits in real time. This enabled care co-ordinators to chase up if carers did not arrive on time to a call, and to contact the person if required to update them on the whereabouts of the carer. The data was then monitored and analysed to address any issues. This meant that if there were specific trends or patterns these could be addressed quickly and effectively. The monitoring indicated that there had not been any missed calls in the period since our last visit.

We spoke with people who used the service about when carers came. One person we spoke with told us “The carers are usually on time and always let me know if there are any issues. They always stay for the allotted time”. Another person told us “There has been no recent calls missed and they are always on time”.

The training manager showed us the training that staff had been completing since our last visit. This included specialised training around specific conditions and care such as epilepsy and dementia. Staff were also able to request training in specific areas if they felt it would be useful and the provider was ensuring that staff were able to access that in a timely manner. This meant that staff were now more appropriately trained to support the individual people that used the service.

The provider had been submitting information to the Care Quality Commission on a regular basis about reviews of people who used the service. We also looked at the records regarding this during our visit. We found that the system the providers had implemented for review visits was working very effectively and there were now no overdue reviews. The monitoring was done by managers and senior managers at all levels to ensure that staff on the ground were carrying out the reviews, and that they quality of these was satisfactory. We found when looking at records that there were some minor inconsistencies with the qualit