Aark Health Limited Also known as Caremark Redbridge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty.

The provider used systems to learn from accidents and incidents. Incidents and accidents had been recorded with actions taken to ensure people were safe. Records showed lessons had been learnt when incidents occurred to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

The provider worked with people and professionals to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored.

The service completed an initial needs assessment before people started using the service. This process included meeting with people and their relatives to identify people’s support needs and determine if support could be provided safely. The provider involved people and their relatives to develop the care plan. A person told us, “Well, they went through the care plan with me, set it up and it works well.” Another person commented, “Yes there was an assessment. Took a good two hours or so and there was time for me to ask lots of questions that I had and that that were answered.”

Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

A safeguarding policy was in place that included the types of abuse and who to report to.

Relatives told us that people felt safe when supported by staff. A relative told us, “‘I cannot speak highly enough of them, we have had Caremark (Aark Health Limited) for two to three years and they are so good.”

Staff had been trained on safeguarding processes and knew how to recognise abuse and who to report to. A staff member told us, I have been trained on safeguarding. Safeguarding means spotting things like abuse and harm and promoting safety and wellbeing. If I see abuse, I will make sure the person is safe and immediately report to my manager, there is other ways we can report like to Redbridge social services.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks.

Risk assessments had been completed on areas such as falls and skin integrity. Assessments included the identified risks and detailed how to mitigate those risks to ensure people received safe care and support.

However, we found for people with specific health conditions such as people at risk of stroke, high blood pressure and diagnosed with diabetes, a robust risk assessment had not been completed. Although care plans included a description of the health conditions as this was identified during pre-assessment stage, assessment did not include how risks in these areas can be mitigated such as signs and symptoms of these conditions and the actions staff should take to ensure people were safe. We fed this back to the management team who informed that risk assessments had been updated after the site visit.

People and relatives told us that their health conditions were managed safely. A person commented, “They know that I have good and bad days as part of the [health condition], they will check with me how I am and ask if everything is okay, they ask if there is anything else I need before they go.” A relative told us, “[Person] had [health condition], which required careful managing and a routine that had to be followed from the hospital and together with [medicines] and making sure that [person] was eating properly, the carers have got [person] in the best condition it has been in.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

The provider assessed risks within people’s home environments. These assessments evaluated property access, internal and external surroundings, and potential fire hazards to ensure both staff and people were safe when care was being delivered.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff had completed key training to perform their roles effectively, such as on moving and handling and first aid. Staff had also received training on the Care Certificate, which provided a number of mandatory training topics essential to providing safe and effective support to people. Specialist training was also completed, including in key topic areas, such as caring for people with a learning disability, diabetes and dementia. The provider used a training matrix to ensure oversight of training. A staff member commented, “I got lot of good training like moving and handling, infection control and medicines. This has been helpful. We get training quiet regularly.” A person commented, “They have to be well trained, I have very specific needs and specialist equipment that they need to know how to use.”

Records showed that staff had received an induction when starting their role as a carer, which included shadowing experienced members of staff. A staff member told us, “They provided me with a good induction, I completed all my training. I also had meetings with the management team and shadowed experienced carers and read care plans. The manager also supported me throughout the induction process.”

Systems were in place to ensure staff attended care calls on time. The service used a digital system to maintain oversight of staff time keeping and were alerted if staff did not log on to calls on time. Data showed that staff attended care calls on time. A staff member told us, “Yes, we can get to care visits on time. We are given time to travel. If I am running late, I will call [people] and the office to make them aware.” A relative commented, “Their time is all accounted for, they stay for the full duration and do everything that is needed.”

Staff received regular supervisions and told us they were supported in their roles. Appraisals also had been completed for staff members working for more than 12 months. A staff member told us, “[Care manager] is very good, I learnt so much from her. She is a very good listener, if I have any concerns, she helps. I am happy to work for her. She is a good manager.”

The service carried out relevant pre-employment checks to ensure staff were able to provide care to vulnerable people. Checks included criminal records checks, right to work in the UK, references and proof of the person’s identity had been carried out to ensure staff were of good character.

The provider had an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection, which is in line with current relevant national guidance.

Staff had received infection control training and infection control care plans were in place to ensure staff followed good infection control practises. A staff member told us, “When we support people, we wear the PPE (personal protective equipment’s) first to make sure infection control is good. We do hand hygiene to prevent infections.” A relative commented, “‘They have their Caremark (Aark Health Limited) uniform on and will wear the gloves and aprons. They do wear the gloves when preparing food as well.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

The service supported people with medicines, which included prompting and administration. Records showed that medicines were being administered as prescribed.

However, we found some discrepancies with records relating to prompting medicines for one person as records showed carers passing this task over to another carer and digital records did not indicate if the medicine was prompted. This was identified as part of medicine audits and following our feedback the service carried out an investigation to ensure lessons was learned and the risk of reoccurrence was minimised. The service sent evidence that showed the medicine was prompted and recorded on a paper MAR chart.

For people that were on medicines to be administered when needed such as paracetamol, protocols were not in place to ensure this medicine was administered safely. The care manager informed this would be completed and shared with staff.

People and relatives told us that medicine was given to them safely. A person told us, “They give me my medicines from the dosette box, make sure I take them.” A relative commented, “They certainly prompt [person] with her medication and check that she takes it I would liaise with any changes of meds from the GP or hospital.”

Staff had received medicines training and a medicine policy was in place. Medicine assessments were completed to ensure staff were competent to administer medicines safely.

Risk assessments were in place for people that took blood thinning medication who were at risk of excessive bleeding.