Caremark Kensington

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People told us they were involved in having their needs assessed and compiling their care plans and risk assessments. People said their care and support were regularly reviewed and their care plans were updated if changes were needed. A person’s representative told us, “[Name] has reviews every 6 months to reflect on their development and progress and address any changes for their medication.” However, some people using the service and their representatives told us that had not been provided with copies of their care plans.

Staff told us people’s assessments covered all aspects of health and social care that may be required, including mental and physical health, as well as people’s individual and preferred methods of communication.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff completed appropriate training and had access to relevant policies, procedures and guidance. This supported them in their roles and helped ensure appropriate working practices were followed.Staff told us that people’s specific needs were clearly recorded within their care plans, which meant they had accurate and up to date information to meet people’s needs. Staff also told us that people’s care plans contained information in respect of dietary needs, allergies and health conditions such as diabetes.

Staff supported people with their eating and drinking where required and respected people’s preferences and cultural needs, as well as their physical dietary needs. A member of staff told us, “Some are independent, so I make the food and they can do the rest. Others I need to help to eat. I record what has been eaten.”

People and their representatives told us they could discuss their care and support with the staff and make adjustments where necessary. People told us they were happy with the way staff supported them with their food and drinks.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff communicated effectively with each other, as well as other health and social care services, to promote continuity and make sure any changes in people’s health were identified quickly and responded to.

The provider worked well with other agencies which benefitted people using the service. For example, a person explained how their partner received support from a different care agency and told us that Caremark Kensington liaised with them to ensure care visit times did not clash.A person’s representative described how the care agency had been very effective in working in partnership with other health and social care services. They explained how the first care worker had received specific training from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and said subsequent care staff had also been properly trained, through bespoke shadowing arrangements.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People and their representatives told us that staff from the care agency supported them to access other healthcare professionals when needed. A person’s representative told us how their loved one’s care package had evolved from primarily supporting them with personal care, to becoming more about enabling the person to go out in the community. The representative said, “Initially [Name] needed 2 carers to support and manage [their] behaviour, but this has now reduced to 1, as [Name]’s mental health and wellbeing has improved so much.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, nor that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

However, despite our findings that the provider did not have sufficient oversight of the electronic call monitoring, other quality assurance processes were followed to monitor the quality of care.

Feedback from people using the service and their representatives, as well as staff, told us that checks were undertaken to observe staff as they provided care. However, these were not always effective as this monitoring did not ensure consistent improvement and outcomes. For example, with administering and management of medicines and timekeeping.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Some staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and said they had completed training in this area as part of their inductions. Some staff were not familiar with the terminology regarding mental capacity. However, staff did confirm they understood the need to offer and respect people’s choices and wait for permission before providing support. A member of staff said, “It is important to get permission.”

A senior member of staff told us they followed the MCA guidelines for those people who were not able to make certain decisions for themselves. This member of staff also gave examples of how some people may have metal capacity for some decisions, but not for others.