Archived: Carewatch (Coventry)

When we visited Carewatch (Coventry) we spoke with the manager, (who was also the provider) the staff working in the office and two care workers during our visit. We gathered evidence of people's experiences by telephoning six people who used the service or their relatives to find out if their needs were being met by the service. Speaking with these people helped answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We saw people’s needs had been accurately assessed and care had been arranged according to people's support needs.

We found there was a process in place for managing risks associated with people’s care.

People we spoke with told us the senior care worker visited them regularly to make sure care plans were accurate and up to date.

People told us they felt safe using the service. We spoke to a relative of a person who had limited mobility and used a hoist to transfer out of bed. They told us care staff were competent using the equipment and that the person appeared safe during transfers.

We found staff completed the training required to work with people in a safe way.

We found people who used the service felt confident any concerns or complaints would be recorded and investigated by the service.

We found the premises were safe and suitable for the purpose the service.

Is the service effective?

People told us the care they received met their needs. People told us they had been involved in planning their care.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service. We saw care plans were reviewed and updated regularly so care staff could continue to provide the correct level of support.

People said care workers arrived around the time expected and stayed long enough to do everything they needed. Staff we spoke with said they were allocated regular clients and were given sufficient time to carry out all the tasks required.

We found staff had regular supervision and their practice was observed to make sure they provided care and support in line with the provider's policies and procedures.

We found records in the service were accurate and up to date.

Is the service caring?

Care plans contained information about people’s likes and preferences. This made sure people received care in a way they preferred.

People who used the service were all positive about the staff who supported them, comments from people included,

“We have had several carers and all have been brilliant.”

“All the care staff have been great.”

We asked people if care workers were polite and respected their privacy. We were told, “Always respectful and very polite.” Another said, “Very discreet, very respectful”.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they were asked for their views and opinions during reviews and any changes were recorded and acted on.

People told us that the service was flexible and they could contact the office at short notice and request changes to their care. “One person told us, “They have been brilliant in every way – they will step in at short notice.”

People told us that care staff noticed when their needs changed and took action. People told us the service would contact other health professionals for them if required, such as GPs and district nurses.

Is the service well led?

We found the service had an effective quality assurance system in place. This included regular reviews with people who used the service, telephone conversations and satisfaction questionnaires.

The service had auditing procedures in place to make sure staff provided care to people as recorded in their care plans and worked in line with the provider's policies and procedures.

People who used the service and staff told us they were able to speak with staff in the office and raise any issues or concerns they had.

All the people we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the service they received. Comments from people included,

“I am very happy with the service – I would recommend them.”

“Yes I am very satisfied with the service I get”

We found that people had given their consent to the care and treatment to be provided and had signed a document to confirm this. People we spoke with said they were happy with the care they received. One person said, “Yes, I am satisfied with the agency. I’ve now got regular carers which is good; we all get on very well.” People told us care workers usually arrived around the same time each day. All the people we spoke with said the carer workers were friendly and polite.

Records we looked at showed the agency regularly reviewed the care to people. Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise symptoms of abuse and what to do to keep people safe. We found people received their medication at the times prescribed. There were processes in place to safely recruit staff and provide staff with the training and support to meet the care needs of people. All the records and documents we requested to see were made available to us.

We re-visited the agency on 27 November 2012 to see what improvement the provider had made to become compliant. We did not talk with people who used the service during this follow up visit. Peoples experience of the service can be found in the report dated 7 June 2012.

We found that the provider had made improvements to the assessing and management processes of the agency and was compliant with regulation 10, Outcome 16 of the essential standards.

We did find that there was insufficient evidence to show all the procedures for assessing and monitoring the service had been put into place. This was because the record keeping in the agency was not always accurate or available to be viewed. We found the provider was not meeting the required standard for record keeping Regulation 20, Outcome 21 and action was needed to improve this.