Caremark (Oldham)

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
 

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and relatives told us when issues were raised, managers listened, responded promptly and took action. Leaders encouraged openness and treated incidents as opportunities to learn.

Learning from concerns and incidents was clearly shared with staff. When issues were identified, managers reviewed care records, observed practice and used supervision to reinforce expectations. Improvements were communicated to staff and followed up to ensure changes were sustained. Staff were also recognised when they delivered good care, and positive feedback was shared to reinforce effective practice.

Records showed that complaints, incidents and near misses led to clear actions, such as changes to care plans, retraining or closer monitoring. Where mistakes occurred, leaders acted quickly, were open with people and families, and put learning into practice to reduce the risk of recurrence. As a result, people benefitted from care that improved over time, and staff felt supported to raise concerns and learn from experience.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People experienced care that resumed promptly after returning home, with visit times and support adjusted to reflect changes in health, mobility or treatment. This helped ensure continuity and reduced the risk of people being left without appropriate support.

Staff understood their role in responding to changes in people’s needs. When people became unwell, experienced a fall, or staff were unable to gain access to the person’s home, they acted to keep them safe. This included staying with them where needed and escalating concerns appropriately. Leaders made sure care plans and risk assessments were updated quickly so that support reflected people’s current needs before visits continued.

The service worked constructively with health and social care partners to manage transitions. Records showed timely communication with local authority and health professionals to agree changes to care, additional support or temporary increases in visit time. As a result, people experienced safe, coordinated support during periods of change and felt reassured that care continued smoothly when circumstances altered.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt safe when receiving care and were supported by staff who understood how to respond when they became anxious or worried. One person said, “I do feel safe; I get very anxious and the care staff help me. The care staff give me confidence.” This reflected a consistent theme across feedback, where people felt reassured by staff who knew them well and responded appropriately to concerns.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding responsibilities. When concerns were identified, staff escalated these appropriately and managers acted to ensure people’s immediate safety. Leaders worked with relevant agencies to assess risk, share information and agree next steps, while keeping people and families informed and involved where appropriate.

Safeguarding concerns were followed through to resolution, with outcomes documented and learning shared with staff. Where investigations concluded that no further action was required, this was clearly explained and recorded. As a result, people were supported in ways that balanced their safety with their rights and wellbeing, and safeguarding processes were applied proportionately and consistently across the service.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were involved in discussions about what mattered to them and how risks should be managed, and care was adjusted to reflect their preferences, abilities and emotional needs. This helped people feel listened to and respected while receiving safe support.

Staff took account of individual triggers and risks and adapted their approach to reduce distress and promoted a calm approach to care interventions. Where people were at risk of becoming anxious or distressed, care plans set out clear guidance on how staff should communicate, provide reassurance and respond if situations escalated. Leaders supported staff to reflect on incidents and adjust care arrangements, so risks were managed more effectively over time.

Records showed that risk management plans were personalised and reviewed regularly, with learning used to improve future support. When incidents occurred, staff recorded what had happened and reviewed this to identify patterns and reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Staff recognised that care was delivered in varied settings and assessed potential hazards so people could receive support safely. Environmental risks were identified as part of routine assessment and review, and actions were taken to reduce avoidable harm.

Staff were supported to recognise when specialist input or additional controls were needed. Where environmental risks were identified, such as mobility limitations or the use of equipment, these were escalated promptly and addressed in partnership with relevant agencies. Leaders provided clear guidance to staff on managing environmental safety and reinforced expectations through communication, supervision and training.

Records showed that environmental risks were reviewed and updated as people’s circumstances changed. Actions taken, such as adjustments to care plans or referrals for specialist advice, helped ensure risks were managed consistently.
 

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People described care being delivered by familiar staff who understood their routines and preferences, which helped promote consistency and confidence. Staffing arrangements supported continuity and the safe delivery of care in people’s homes.

Staff were recruited through appropriate checks and received training relevant to their roles. Leaders supported staff through regular supervision, observation of practice and ongoing development, helping to maintain competence and address any concerns promptly. When issues were identified, managers took action to provide additional support, guidance or training to improve practice.

Leaders monitored staffing arrangements to ensure care was delivered as planned and responded when changes or pressures arose. Records showed that staffing issues were reviewed and addressed, with learning used to strengthen deployment and oversight.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People told us staff followed good hygiene practices during visits. This helped people feel reassured that infection risks were being managed effectively.

Staff understood their responsibilities for infection prevention and control, using personal protective equipment correctly and following hand hygiene guidance. Leaders reinforced safe practice through training, supervision and monitoring, and acted promptly when heightened infection risks were identified to ensure appropriate measures were put in place.

Records showed that infection risks were assessed and reviewed, and actions were taken when concerns arose. Where additional controls were needed, these were implemented and monitored to reduce the risk of spread.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received support that reflected current guidance and were helped to take medicines at the right time and in the right way. This contributed to people feeling reassured that their medicines were being managed safely.

Staff understood their role in supporting medicines use and knew how to escalate concerns. When medicines changed or issues were identified, staff sought advice promptly and managers ensured care records were updated so guidance was clear and accurate. Leaders provided supervision and training to help staff maintain competence and confidence when supporting people with medicines.

Medicines related incidents were reviewed and used to improve practice. Action taken included additional staff support, refresher training and closer monitoring where needed.