Caremark Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Malling

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people felt well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 65 (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 ensured people were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. Staff interactions were consistently described as caring and respectful.
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, polite and compassionate. Feedback included carers being “nice,” “delightful,” and making people feel comfortable during visits.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to treat people with dignity and compassion, including taking time to reassure people, particularly where they were distressed or anxious. There was also evidence of staff providing emotional support as well as physical care, recognising the importance of a “human touch” beyond task completion. One person said, “My carer is lovely.” Another said, Our live in carer is marvellous, the previous one was a wonderful chap and our new one (name) is also very good, the cover ones can be quite variable but are usually pleasant”

Staff described adapting their approach depending on people’s mood or communication needs, for example using reassurance techniques or spending additional time to support people when required.

The provider treated people as individuals and sought to understand their preferences and needs.

Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s individual needs and preferences, including communication styles, emotional needs and daily routines. For example, staff described adapting communication approaches for people with hearing impairments by speaking clearly and at an appropriate volume.

There were also examples of person-centred care being delivered in practice, such as supporting people in ways that improved their wellbeing and engagement. This included building rapport with people and responding flexibly to their needs during care visits.

The provider also used feedback from people to adjust care provision, such as changing visit times to better match individual routines.

The provider generally promoted people’s independence, although this was not always consistently supported due to variability in care delivery and time pressures.

People’s ability to experience care as enabling depended in part on whether they had familiar carers and sufficient time within visits. When calls were short, delayed or task-focused, there was less opportunity for staff to promote independence in a fuller and more person-centred way. This meant independence was generally encouraged, but not always consistently maximised.

Staff described supporting people to do as much for themselves as possible and encouraging decision-making during visits. Care workers spoke about balancing support with independence, including helping people maintain routines, mobility and confidence without taking over unnecessarily.

Staff generally responded to people’s immediate needs and demonstrated an understanding of when to act or escalate concerns; however, responsiveness was not consistent across the service.
There were multiple examples of staff responding appropriately to people’s needs, including recognising changes in health or behaviour and escalating concerns to the office or relevant professionals.

Staff reported being confident in raising concerns and acting when something was “not quite right,” including contacting the office directly for urgent issues.

In addition, staff described supporting people flexibly during visits, for example adjusting tasks or spending extra time where people required additional support.

However, people’s feedback highlighted inconsistencies in responsiveness, particularly where visits were delayed or missed or care tasks were not completed as expected.

Issues raised to the office were not always promptly addressed.

This indicated that while individual staff demonstrated responsiveness, organisational systems did not always ensure consistent response to people’s immediate needs.

The provider generally supported staff wellbeing and created a culture where staff felt listened to; however, organisational pressures and operational challenges impacted the consistency of the service.
Staff reported feeling supported by management and able to raise concerns openly. They described management as approachable and responsive, with supervisors providing guidance and informal support.

There were examples of management supporting staff wellbeing in practice, including, providing assistance during personal difficulties. Offering flexibility with working arrangements and supporting staff through supervision and communication.

Staff also described a positive team culture, with opportunities to provide feedback and contribute ideas to improve the service.