Caremark Hinckley Bosworth Blaby & Leicester

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 64 (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.

Staff described to us how they were responsive to people’s changing needs. For example, one staff member told us how they adapted a person’s care routine and involved community nurses when a person started showing signs of developing a pressure related injury. Another staff member told us, “We manage well because they have a good team who are resourceful.”

People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental and emotional care needs. If people had specific needs as a result of their protected characteristics, such as living with dementia, these were reflected in their care plans.

People were happy with the care they received. One person described the staff as, “Very good without a doubt.”

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.

Where people were supported by more than one service or by unpaid carers, staff worked in a transparent and flexible way to ensure continuity of care. People told us how care staff would support them when their families weren’t around or with things they couldn’t do for themselves.

The providers systems and processes, set out in their policies and procedures, promoted the delivery of care provisions and enabled continuity of care. Care plans considered people’s protected characteristics and detailed aspects of people’s care that were provided by other agencies or people’s relatives.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information to people. However, the provider did not always make use of alternative formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were given a service user guide that included information about care provisions available, how to raise concerns, and how to contact external agencies such as the Local Authority and The Care Quality Commission. This document was available upon request in alternative formats such as easy read and Braille. The provider also had an easy read care planning template readily available. However, we found the provider had not made full use of these alternative versions to promote information access where people had additional support 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.

Mechanisms were in place to provide people with opportunity to raise concerns and share feedback. For example, face to face care reviews and telephone check ins took place periodically when leaders would ask if people were satisfied with their care. When concerns were raised, changes were made. One person told us, “They ring me up from time to time to see if I’m happy, and when I ring them.” The providers complaints procedures ensured that where people raised concerns, these were listened to, investigated, and where required improvement action was taken and the provider apologised for any errors.

The provider listened to and enabled the ambitions of the people they supported to promote quality of life and wellbeing. For example, the provider commissioned a Care for A Wish scheme, that enabled people and their care staff to submit entries to a competition for a special event or wish. The most recent winners requested support to revisit the location of their first date.

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

People mostly received the care and support required to meet their needs. For example, where people required 4 care visits daily for medicines, food preparation or repositioning, schedules were in place to ensure staff attended and provided the support people needed. However, due to fluctuations in staffing rotas, the times of people’s care visits were not always consistent.

Staff understood the people they supported well and how best to meet their needs. For example, staff were able to describe the needs of people they supported and if they needed one or two carers, support with eating meals, assistance in the shower, or other daily living tasks such as cleaning and shopping.

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. However, monitoring systems did not always ensure equity in outcomes.

People’s care plans and daily records mostly supported the monitoring of people’s care outcomes. For example, medication administration records, repositioning records and incident monitoring forms mostly enabled the provider to maintain oversight of people’s care to ensure it was meeting the required needs and achieving positive outcomes for people. However, we found that staff were not making full use of the call logging system to ensure that electronic call data was accurate and reflected the amount of time people required to fulfil their care needs. At the time of our assessment the provider was not effectively monitoring this. However, they identified this as an area for improvement during our regulatory assessment and took immediate action to implement a new monitoring protocol.

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.

Care plans considered people’s potential future care needs in the event of declining health. Care plans also considered people’s preferences and wishes in relation to end-of-life care and detailed other services and relatives who may be involved in people’s future care needs.

The Registered Manager was able to describe how they would approach sensitive conversations about people’s end-of-life care in a kind and compassionate manner.

Staff received training on end-of-life care were able to describe what compassionate end-of-life care should look like.