You are here

Caremark Watford & Hertsmere Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 December 2018

This inspection commenced on 13 November 2018 and concluded on 21 November 2018 and was announced.

Caremark Watford and Hertsmere is a domiciliary care agency and provides personal care to people living in their own homes and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection 23 people were being provided with a service.

Not everyone using Caremark Watford and Hertsmere received the regulated activity of personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care which included assisting people with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At our last inspection we rated the service requires improvement. Recruitment systems were not consistently followed. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the evidence supported the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

The service had a registered manager. 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 felt safe being supported by staff from Caremark Watford and Hertsmere and reported no concerns in relation to safe working practices.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding people and had received training. The provider had policies, procedures and systems in place should they have any concerns. Staff knew how to report and elevate concerns.

Medicines were managed safely by staff who had received training on how to administer people’s medicines safely. There were appropriate infection control practices in place and personal protective equipment was provided.

People were supported by adequate numbers of staff, however some people reported that they did not always have support from the same care workers, in particular at the weekend. We shared this information with the registered manager who had identified this and was working to resolve recruitment issues. There were safe recruitment processes in place with robust checks completed for all staff.

Staff spoke positively about the support and training they received. Training plans were in place and staff were supported by their line manager through regular supervision, team meetings and work based observation and spot checks.

People were supported with their nutritional needs when required and were supported to access the services of a range of health care professionals when required.

Staff gained consent prior to any care being delivered and understood the Mental Capacity Act and how this related to people who used the service. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People and their relatives felt staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect. People’s dignity was maintained during support and people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.

Care plans were detailed and personalised recording people’s individual needs including life histories, likes, dislikes and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated regularly which included when any change occurred. People and where appropriate relatives, were involved in the development and review of their care.

People views about their experience of the service was routinely sought from people. Any concerns or complaints received were recorded and investigated by the registered manager. Any learning from such incidents were shared to help reduce the risk of a reoccurrence.

The registered manager and provider had effective quality assurance process in place to monitor the quality of the service and make impr

Inspection areas



Updated 18 December 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe when receiving support.

There were appropriate systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of harm.

Staff had received safeguarding training and had a good understanding of the procedures in place.

Risks to people�s health and well-being were assessed and managed appropriately.

There were robust recruitment processes in place, and sufficient staff to meet people�s needs

People received their medicines safely.

Systems and processes were in place to reduce risks in relation to infection control, and staff were provided with appropriate equipment.



Updated 18 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received training, supervision and support and had the knowledge and skills to provide effective care.

People were involved in decision making were asked to give consent to the care and support they received.

The manager and staff were aware of MCA requirements.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts and had access health care professionals.



Updated 18 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that were kind, caring and friendly.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Staff maintained people�s dignity and respected people�s privacy.



Updated 18 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in the planning of their care and received a personalised service.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people�s individual wishes and requirements.

The provider had an effective system to manage complaints and people were aware of how to raise any concerns.



Updated 18 December 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager was supportive of the staff team and promoted an inclusive, person centred service.

People were encouraged to give feedback and this was used to make continual improvements.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and their management of the service.

Staff were motivated and committed to provide quality care.

There were effective quality assurance processes in place, and the management team completed regular audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.