Archived: Carewatch (Redcar & Cleveland)

The inspection team was made up of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. The expert by experience spoke with people who used the service and relatives. The inspector spoke with one of the partners, the assistant manager, two field care supervisors, a care co-ordinator and with three care workers.

We set out to answer our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Care plans and risk assessments were in place and were updated as people's needs changed. Care records detailed the support people required and encouraged people to be independent where possible. People we spoke with during the inspection told us that they felt safe.

Staff we spoke with during the inspection were very knowledgeable about the people they cared for. Staff we spoke with were aware of risk management plans that had been written for people with particular needs.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported.

The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and there was evidence to show that these had been followed appropriately. Staff had received training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act along with the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. All staff that we spoke with during the inspection were aware of different types of abuse and action to take if abuse was suspected. However, two of the seven staff we spoke with during the visit did not have a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We looked at the recruitment of new staff. This showed that appropriate checks were carried out on staff before they commenced work. This helped to ensure the safety of people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and where possible people and their relatives were involved in writing the plan of care. Care and support plans were reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

Is the service caring?

People told us that they were supported by kind and attentive staff.

People who used the service, their relatives and friends were regularly asked for their views on the care and service provided. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised, however small, these were taken on board and dealt with.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Discussion with the assistant manager during the inspection confirmed that any concerns or complaints were taken seriously. We looked at the complaints record which confirmed that complaints had been investigated thoroughly and in line with the complaints policy.

Is the service well led?

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and all senior staff understood and shared the responsibility of quality assurance processes. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

What people told us.

During the inspection we spoke with 15 people who either used the service or were relatives of people who used the service. People told us that they were very happy with the care and service received. One person said, 'We are absolutely delighted with Carewatch, we have two or three care agencies and they're the best.' Another person said, 'They're absolutely marvellous, all of them, it doesn't matter who comes they all do a good job.'

People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect. One person said, 'These girls are wonderful and they treat me like I am a king.' Another person said, 'I've never known them be anything but nice and polite.'

People told us that they felt safe. One person said, "They make me feel really safe in their hands, I have a regular who is more like a friend.'

People told us that the service was reliable, however six of the people we spoke with said that when their regular care worker was on holiday or off sick they were not always informed in advance who would be coming. One person said, 'The office used to send a roster through on a Friday so I knew who was coming but now they give it to the girls to pass on. I rarely get one, or it's really late by the time I get it.' Another person said, 'It's the one thing that annoys me, I never know who's coming. I only know if there's a change when someone else turns up instead of my regular carer. I wish they'd warn me.'

People told us that they felt comfortable and spoke to staff if they were concerned or had a complaint. One person said, 'So far there's been nothing to complain about.'

We found that people had their needs assessed and support plans were in place. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported.

We found there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

Staff received appropriate training and systems were in place to ensure staff received supervision and appraisals.

We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of service delivery.

During the inspection we looked at the care records of people who used the service. We found that some support plans were insufficiently detailed and were not person centred.