We carried out a review of the data available to us about Caremark (Chichester) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Caremark (Chichester), you can give feedback on this service.
Caremark Chichester is a domiciliary care agency which provides support for adults in the community, including those living with Parkinson’s and dementia, who require assistance with personal care. At the time of the inspection 109 people used the service.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection 78 people were in receipt of personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems and process were in place to monitor the quality of the service being delivered. These were not always robust to identify the issues we found during the inspection in relation to ensuring accurate record keeping. The provider and registered manager provided assurances of what action they would take to address this.
People were happy with the care they received and felt safe with the staff supporting them. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and improper treatment and staff knew how to identify potential harm and report concerns. People received their medicines safely from staff who were trained to administer these. Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service.
Positive and caring relationships had been developed between staff and people who used the service. People were treated with kindness and compassion and staff were friendly and respectful. People benefitted from having support from staff who had a good understanding of their individual needs.
Care was personalised to meet people’s care, social and well-being needs. Care plans provided adequate information and guidance for staff. Staff knew people well and provided support in line with people’s preferences. People’s diverse needs were catered for and they were treated with dignity and respect.
There were high levels of satisfaction amongst people who used the service. Everyone we spoke with said they would recommend the service to others. People repeatedly told us staff had made a difference in their lives and ensured people were happy and safe.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The culture of the service was positive; people and staff were complementary of the management and provider.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 15 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service had a new manager in post who had commenced their employment in May 2017. They had yet to register with the Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe receiving care from staff in their own homes. Some people received support with their medicines. We observed and records confirmed medicines were mostly managed safely. However, one incident involving a person who had missed their medicines had not been referred to the local authority safeguarding team for their review. The manager completed the incident report retrospectively and we made a recommendation and have discussed this further in the Well-led section of our report.
Staff supporting people in their own homes, had been trained in safeguarding adults at risk and could describe different types of abuse and what action they would take if they were concerned.
Risks to people were identified, assessed and managed appropriately. Care plans provided staff with guidance on how to support people and mitigate risks. Staffing levels were assessed based on people's needs. People and staff felt there were sufficient staff and were supported at the agreed times. Safe recruitment practices were in place.
Staff had completed training in a range of areas considered essential in order to look after people effectively. New staff completed the Care Certificate, a universally recognised qualification. Staff were encouraged to study for additional qualifications such as diplomas in health and social care. Staff had regular supervision meetings with their line managers and attended team meetings. Staff had been trained in mental capacity and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Some people required support at meal-times and the staff team met those needs with flexibility. Staff were able to support people to access a range of healthcare professionals when needed.
People were supported by kind and caring staff and spoke positively of the relationships that had developed. People were encouraged to be involved in all aspects of their care and to express their views. They were treated with dignity and respect by staff.
Care plans contained personalised information about people that was responsive to their needs.
Information included people's personal histories, likes, dislikes and preferences. Complaints were managed in line with the provider's policy.
People were involved in all aspects of the service and their feedback was sought through the completion of an annual survey. Responses were positive. Staff felt supported by management team and were asked for their views on their employment through an annual survey. People spoke of the good quality care they received and of the caring staff team. A range of systems was in place to measure and monitor the care delivered and the service overall.
Since our inspection the manager has left the service and the deputy manager has achieved the post of manager. The provider has informed us the new manager will be applying to register with the Commission by the end of August 2017.