You are here

Caremark Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Malling Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 November 2017

Caremark (Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Malling) is a care agency that provides personal care, companionship and support to people living in their own homes. The service provides minimum 30 minute calls. The range of needs the service can meet includes the needs of older people, people with physical disabilities, people with mental health needs, people with a learning disability and people living with dementia.

There were 13 people using the service who were receiving personal care at the time of the inspection.

This inspection was carried out on 18 September 2017. This was the first inspection of this service since it was registered. We gave the service short notice of the inspection because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

There was a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

The service was exceptionally caring and staff were passionate about delivering the caring values of the organisation. Staff knew the people they supported well and worked in small teams to ensure consistent support and to ensure that people always had a staff member they knew well. We found examples where the staff and the management team had gone beyond the agreed care plan to provide additional support to people to ensure people’s comfort, safety and wellbeing. Support was often provided to people’s relatives to ensure their emotional well being. The registered manager and staff had an excellent understanding of the needs of people living with dementia. They understood how to support people at times of confusion to meet their emotional needs. People and their relatives were complimentary about the caring nature of the staff and the compassionate values of the service.

People were supported sensitively at the end of their life. Staff treated people with compassion and worked closely with the hospice to enable them to have a comfortable, dignified and pain free death.

People told us they felt safe and well cared for using the service. People were protected from abuse and harm and risks to their welfare were assessed and minimised. Staff promoted people's independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves. People had effective care plans that ensured their health needs were met. They were supported to manage their medicines in a safe way. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.

There were sufficient numbers of skilled and competent staff to meet people's needs. People and their relatives could be assured that staff were of good character and fit to carry out their duties because robust recruitment procedures were followed. Staff felt valued and supported by the management team. People received effective care from skilled, knowledgeable staff. Staff were encouraged and supported to undertake qualifications relevant to their roles and for their personal development.

People received a responsive, flexible and person centred service. Their care and support was planned in partnership with them. People were asked for their consent before care was given and they were supported and enabled to make their own decisions. People's views about the quality and safety of the service they received were sought through a range of means. Feedback provided by people was consistently used to improve the service.

The service was well led. The vision and values of the service were person centred and made sure people were always at the heart of the service. We found that these values were effectively cascaded through the care team and this meant that people received a person centre

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and report any concerns. The registered provider had effective policies for preventing and responding to abuse.

Risk assessments were centred on individual needs and there were effective measures in place to reduce risks to people. There was an appropriate system in place for the monitoring and management of accidents and incidents.

There was a sufficient number of staff to ensure that people’s needs were consistently met to keep them safe. Safe recruitment procedures were followed in practice.

Medicines were administered safely. People received the medicines they needed at the right time.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were appropriately trained and had a good knowledge of how to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted in accordance with the legal requirements. People were only provided with care when they had consented to this.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and were provided with a choice of suitable food and drink.

People were referred to healthcare professionals promptly when needed.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 28 November 2017

Staff were passionate about delivering the caring values of the organisation and ensured these were delivered. Staff had developed positive relationships with people and respected them as individuals. Staff frequently went beyond the agreed care plan to deliver personalised care and to ensure people’s wellbeing. People and their relatives were complementary about the caring nature of the staff and the compassionate values of the service.

Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness and compassion. People were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff knew what was important to people and ensured their wishes were met.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to do as much for themselves as they were able to.

People were supported with sensitivity and compassion at the end of their life.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was responsive to people’s needs and provided a personalised and flexible service.

People’s views and wishes formed the basis of their care. They were asked what was important to them and had care plans that met their needs in the way they wanted. Staff understood how to deliver each person’s care in a personalised way.

Staff and the management demonstrated a flexible approach to supporting people.

People’s views were listened to and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was well-led.

People told us they were happy with the service they received. The vision and values of the service were person centred and made sure people were always at the heart of the service.

There was effective leadership of the service and staff felt their contributions to the service were highly valued.

The registered provider demonstrated a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve. The registered provider worked proactively with other organisations to make sure they were following current guidance and providing a high quality service.

There were effective systems for monitoring and improving the care people received.