You are here

Archived: Caremark (Barnsley)

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 August 2012
Date of Publication: 2 October 2012
Inspection Report - DC published 2 October 2012 PDF

Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills (outcome 14)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by competent staff.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

User experience

All of the people we contacted said that the care workers were able to carry out their duties with confidence and were able to follow the care plans.

We were also told that when people had the same care worker, the care worker got used to the way they wished to be supported.

People said care co-ordinators worked with care workers to check the care practices. They commented that care workers attended regular training and sometimes they discussed with them what they had learnt.

Other evidence

Development, supervision and appraisal

Staff received appropriate professional development. We checked the training records of four care workers. We spoke with two care workers, one care co-ordinator, the manager and six relatives.

The care workers said that they had a development plan which they discussed at their supervisions. The manager said the development plans were being revised to reflect the growth of their business so that staff would be able to specialise in areas they had specific interests in. She said that this would make staff valued and promote their service.

The agency’s policy was for staff to have supervision with a manager every four to six weeks and an appraisal meeting annually. The staff that we spoke with told us that they had supervisions and that sometimes used staff meetings to have group supervisions where everyone was able to have their say about common issues. All the staff we spoke with told us that they received good support from the manager and the care co-ordinators. We noted that staff had received between one to three supervision, since October 2011. This frequency did not adhere to the company policy. Therefore the provider may wish to note that staff did not receive supervision every four to six weeks as stated in the agency’s policy’.


The care workers were enabled to attend training and obtain further relevant qualifications. We were informed by four care workers and the manager that when new staff started they undertook Induction training which on average lasted twelve weeks. The manager said that the training adhered to a nationally recognised common induction programme. The programme included mandatory units, such as the role of the care worker, personal development, effective communication, equality and inclusion, implementing duty of care, safeguarding, person-centered support and health and safety in adult social care settings. The manager informed us that the company employed a trainer who organised all the necessary training and made sure staff kept their training up to date. We checked four staff training records and saw that they were up to date. The care staff we spoke with confirmed this.

The manager and four care workers said each new care worker was allocated an experienced care co-ordinator to help them understand how the agency worked and what was expected of them. We were informed that a period of shadowing other workers was organised and was monitored by the manager during the induction period. The manager showed us the records of care workers who had completed induction training. She also told us that once the care worker was deemed competent they were given a case load. Following each shift all new care workers were contacted by their care co-ordinators or the manager so that staff could be supported.

All the care workers we contacted told us that only when they had received training on new equipment would they use it. The manager and relatives confirmed this.