Caremark Cheltenham and Tewkesbury

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were person centred and highlighted people’s individual needs and preferences as well as their daily routines and activities. People and their families were fully involved in the care planning and review process.

Staff told us they enjoyed making a difference in people’s lives and getting to know people and their families. They felt pride in providing a high-quality person-centred service. This included being able to chat, engage and spend quality time with people and not just completing practical or physical tasks. Staff ensured they stayed for the full length of the care visit, and this was monitored comparing planned and actual times in people’s homes.

Managers and staff shared examples with us of person-centred care that had been provided and benefited people’s health and wellbeing. Staff had access to a range of information about people to help them work in a person-centred way. One staff member told us, “Person-centred care means seeing the person first, and not the tasks. I understand that every individual is different and requires a distinct level of care. It's about respecting their choices, routines, preferences, culture, religion, and independence. I work in a way that suits their life, not what is easiest for me.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered managers worked closely with other health and social care professionals to provide joined up care. By collaborating with hospital discharge teams they ensured care, support and equipment was in place for the person returning home. They liaised with the person and their families to coordinate start times and support schedules. This provided a smooth return home and prevented re-admissions to hospital due to a failed discharge.

Recognising the complex healthcare needs of people in their local community had led to the development of their second branch of the service, the Complex Care Team. A registered nurse was the clinical lead who was developing policies and a bespoke training programme to upskill staff with specifically assessed health care support. This meant some ‘delegated healthcare tasks’ could be met within regulatory requirements safely within the community under the supervision of the clinical lead.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

We found the service was meeting the AIS. People’s communications needs were recorded and provision was made to make sure people had information suitable to their individual needs.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s communication needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The registered managers regularly reviewed feedback and carried out surveys to monitor the support provided. There was a complaints policy and process in place and a log to monitor complaints, concerns, questions and any actions taken.

We received positive feedback from people and their families who told us they were able to discuss their care needs and support with staff and managers at any time. The registered managers were responsive to changes and would resolve any concerns quickly. Comments we received included, “Never needed to complain but I know how to” and “All the information is in my folder, I haven’t needed to make a complaint.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff supported people where needed to access their local community and services. This included GP appointments, local shops, cafes and leisure centres to maintain social connections and enjoy meaningful activities. The registered managers told us they advocated for people where necessary to ensure they received the care they needed. This included requesting time for making culturally appropriate meals, making telephone calls on the person’s behalf and calling their GP surgery.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered managers arranged for a person supported to attend a multi-disciplinary meeting so they could be fully involved in the decision-making process about their care.

Another person’s first language was not English. They were distressed at not being understood or understanding communications, which was leading to a breakdown in care. Managers asked the staff team who amongst them spoke the person’s first language and 2 staff were identified who now support this person continuously, resulting in a successful delivery of care. Interpreters or family members were also involved to support people whose first language was not English.

Another person at risk of a breakdown in care, was supported with a 2 hour visit to batch cook and freeze their culturally appropriate meals.

A younger person with disabilities was supported to access their local community. Staff adapted their communication, pace and physical support to ensure positive outcomes rather than experiencing limitations due to their disabilities.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of the inspection and the service did not provide a ‘stand alone’ end of life service. However, the registered managers told us if an existing person being supported became very unwell, end of life care at home would be provided to ensure continuity of care and reduce disruption to the person and their family. They would ensure they worked with other professionals to support a person at the end of their life to enable them to be pain free and comfortable.

Staff told us they had completed training in end-of-life care and records evidenced this. People’s care plans showed if they had a ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) form in place to refer to in an emergency.