Caremark Thurrock

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were involved in decisions about their care and support. Assessments explored what was important to people, their preferences, routines, and goals, and this information was reflected in personalised care plans.

Care plans contained personalised guidance for staff on how support should be delivered, including information about people's preferences, interests, desired outcomes, and how their needs could vary on both good and bad days. Staff adapted support to meet people's changing needs, with care plans updated following changes in health, mobility, or professional involvement. This helped ensure care remained responsive and tailored. Relatives told us staff understood what mattered to people and how they preferred their care to be delivered.

The provider worked closely with people, relatives, and professionals to ensure care remained responsive to changing needs. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed following changes in health or support requirements, and staff communicated concerns promptly to relatives and healthcare professionals.

Relatives described the service as reliable and told us people were supported by regular staff who knew them well. Managers introduced new carers gradually to promote continuity and reassurance. Regular reviews and monitoring calls helped identify changing needs and supported consistent, coordinated care.

People and relatives were provided with information about the service, their care and support arrangements, and how to raise concerns or access support. This included care plans, service user guides, contact details, and information about the complaints process.

The provider took steps to ensure information was accessible to people, with alternative formats such as large print, easy read, and translated materials available where needed.

Relatives confirmed they had received information about the service and knew who to contact if they needed advice or support. One relative told us, “We have a folder with all the details and information in.” This helped people and those important to them make informed decisions about their care and support.

Relatives told us they felt they and their family members were listened to and involved in decisions about care and support. The provider sought feedback through monitoring calls, reviews, and regular communication with people and their families. One relative said, “We do feel involved as a family in [person’s] ongoing care.” Records showed feedback, concerns, and complaints were reviewed and acted upon to support learning and improvement. This helped ensure the service remained responsive to people's views and experiences.

The provider considered people's individual needs and preferences when arranging care and support. Managers made reasonable adjustments where required and sought to match staff to people's needs and preferences.

Accessible information was available in a range of formats, and relatives were involved in assessments and introductions to care staff before support began. Relatives spoke positively about the consistency of care staff and their understanding of individual needs, helping to ensure equitable access to personalised support.

The provider considered people's individual needs, preferences, communication requirements, and circumstances when planning care. Support was tailored to reflect these needs, and accessible information was available where required to help people engage with their care and support.

Care records showed people were supported to maintain their independence, relationships, and activities that were important to them. Relatives described positive outcomes from the care provided. One relative said, “[Person] feels refreshed and walking a little easier now.”

The provider had considered some aspects of future planning; however, this was not consistently explored or documented across the service. Records included evidence of Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) decisions and emergency information. Staff had completed end-of-life care training, and managers told us discussions about future wishes formed part of assessment and review processes.

However, evidence reviewed showed people's future wishes and preferences were not consistently recorded. Care records often contained limited information about future planning or documented that people had chosen not to engage in these discussions. Although no one was receiving end-of-life care, opportunities remained to strengthen the recording and review of people's future wishes to help ensure they could be consistently understood and respected should circumstances change. Leaders acknowledged this area of care planning required further improvement and were taking action to address it.