Caremark (Dartford & Gravesham)

Updated 27 March 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an announced inspection at the provider’s office in Gravesend, taking place on 15 January 2019. We continued the inspection on 01 February 2019 we analysed information people had sent to us in feedback questionnaires. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed the registered manager to be available to interview at the office. We also needed to gather some pre-inspection information to confirm which people had consented to us contacting them.

We used information we held about the service and the provider to assist us to plan the inspection. This included notifications the provider had sent to us about significant events at the service. We also used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We received feedback about the service from six people. We spoke with six staff including the registered provider, the registered manager, and four members of staff who gave us their views about the service. We contacted two external health and social care professionals for their views.

We spent time looking at records, policies and procedures, complaint and incident and accident monitoring systems. We looked at a five people’s care files, five staff files, the staff training programme and medicine records.

The service had been registered with us since 22 March 2018. This was the first inspection carried out on the service to check that it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

Updated 27 March 2019

The announced inspection took place on 15 January and 01 February 2019.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults who require care and support who live with their family or in their own houses and flats in the community. Not everyone using Caremark (Dartford & Gravesham) service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection, 27 adults were receiving personal care in their own homes.

The provider employed a registered manager at the service. 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 had an initial assessment before they received a service and the assessment was used to produce a care plan personalised to them. Documentation in the care plans was fully completed. A person-centred approach had been taken in the care planning process to promote the importance of staff accessing individual information about people, which was documented.

An assessment of risks took place for each person and risk control measures were put into place to help keep people safe and prevent harm. Environmental risks inside and outside people’s homes were documented to minimise the risk from potential hazards.

Risk management systems included minimising the risks of infection. Staff received training about infection control and were provided with the personal protective equipment they needed for their roles. For example, disposable gloves.

Accidents and incidents were recorded by staff, logged on a computerised monitoring system and investigated. Lessons learnt approach was taken following up on incidents to identify themes and prevent future occurrences.

Medicines administration was monitored and overseen by the registered manager. Staff received training and followed an up to date policy so that people received their medicines in a safe way. Care plans, medicines administration records and daily records showed current information about people’s medicines.

A safeguarding policy with the information staff would need to follow if they had concerns about people was available. People told us they felt safe and knew who they would talk to if they did not.

People did not require the assistance of staff to manage their health care needs as they either took care of this themselves or had a relative or friend to help. When assistance was required, staff knew who to contact to get people the help they needed. For example, the GP.

People were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs where necessary. People’s relatives took responsibility for this for most people. However, where people did require this support from staff, people and their relatives told us they were happy with the support.

The provider and registered manager followed safe recruitment practices to recruit suitable staff. Enough staff were available to be able to run an effective service and be responsive to people’s needs. Staff had a suitable induction period when they were new where they were introduced to people before they started to support them. People had regular staff to support them who were on time when visiting and supported them for the time they were allocated.

Staff training was planned and monitored. A range of statutory and specialised training was available to staff based on people’s needs.

Staff had one to one supervision meetings, staff had been regularly observed while carrying out their duties to ensure they continued to provide safe care and follow good practice. Staff were informed about current practice through staff meetings and by being updated with organisational information and new health and social care guidance.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

End of life care was provided as part of a joint working approach with other organisations delivering end of life care to people in the community.

The registered provider had a set of values the staff understood and included protecting people's human rights. The provider also provided funding and support for local community groups where people could meet others.

The caring approach of staff was evidenced by people and their relatives making positive comments about the staff who supported them. People told us they had regular staff providing their care and support who had got to know them well, creating confidence and trust. People were given a service user guide at the commencement of their care and support with the information they would need about the service they should expect.

The provider had an up to date complaints procedure and people and their relatives told us they would know how to make a complaint if they needed to.

The registered provider and registered manager used a range of auditing systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service, these were used effectively to identify where improvements were needed and what actions to take to reduce risks.

Quality auditing processes included asking people who used the service for their views. The registered manager and provider effectively used their quality audit system to plan improvement to the service. The management benefited from learning and meeting with other managers within the organisation.