The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Caremark ( Luton & South Beds)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Plaza Suite 101, 668 Hitchin Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU2 7XH (01582) 415946

Provided and run by:
Social Health Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

19 January 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection by visiting the office on 19 January 2015 and it was unannounced. Between this date and 6 February 2015, we spoke with people who used the service and the staff by telephone.

The service provides care and support to people in their own homes, some of whom may be living with dementia, chronic conditions and physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection, 153 people were being supported by the service.

The service has a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was not available at the time of the inspection and the provider’s care coordinator was the interim manager of the service.

There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to the staff on how risks could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm, and medicines were managed safely.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there were sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent to care in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

The staff had supervision and support, and had been trained to meet people’s individual needs.

People were supported by caring and respectful staff. They were supported to access other health and social care services when required.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of people’s individual needs, preferences, and choices. However, some of the people’s needs were not always responded to in a timely way.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.

The provider had quality monitoring processes in place, and these were used effectively to drive improvements.

9, 13 May 2014

During a routine inspection

When we visited Caremark (Luton & South Beds) in January 2014 we found that they were not meeting three of the regulations we reviewed. We checked to make sure they had made the required improvements. We found that they had made improvements.

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

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

Is the service effective?

We found that people's care needs and care plans had been recently updated. Care plans had been signed by people. This demonstrated that they were involved in the planning and development of their care.

Staff spoken with said that they had been provided with appropriate induction and updated training and records seen supported this.

We found that the frequency of supervision for staff had increased. Those staff who required an appraisal had been recently appraised. This demonstrated that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with 13 people who were being supported by the agency. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Comments from people were variable. For example, one person said, '"The staff are fantastic.' Another person said, 'Some carers are better than others. You get this in every walk of life.'

Is the service responsive?

We found that people who use the service had experienced a significant high number of late and missed calls. This resulted in a lot of complaints being made. To minimise the risk of further missed and late calls the provider introduced a call monitoring system. This ensured that an alert would be raised if a call had not been attended to within the allocated scheduled timescale.

The provider had obtained the views of people who use the service. People had been asked to complete a survey and 20% of them had responded. Their feedback had been analysed and an action plan had been put in place to address areas that were identified as requiring attention.

Is the service well-led?

Staff spoken with said that regular staff meetings were held and that they were listened to and enabled to make suggestions and influence how people's care should be provided. They also said that the manager was approachable and supportive.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activity at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

Is the service safe?

We found the agency had a safeguarding policy which was in line with the multi-agency policy. Staff were aware of the different types of abuse and what action to take if they suspected abuse had taken place.

The agency had effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of people acquiring a health care infection.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. This was to ensure that people were cared for by suitably qualified and appropriate staff.

18 December 2013 and 6 January 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

When we inspected Caremark (Luton & South Beds) we visited the office and we spoke with the owner, the acting manager and two care staff. At the time of our inspection, the service provided care and support to over 150 people in their own homes. An expert by experience spoke with 13 people who use the service or their relatives, and we spoke with a further seven care staff. We found the service did not always provide a service that was responsive to people's individual needs, although we noted that people were given appropriate information, and were treated with respect and dignity. Medicines were administered safely, and the records completed accurately.

We found staff did not receive sufficient training, and were not enabled to acquire further qualifications. Supervision was not completed in accordance with the provider's policy.

The provider's quality monitoring systems were not effectively used to ensure that people received safe and appropriate care. Most people we spoke with indicated that they had not been asked to give feedback about the quality of the care they received. One person said, 'No, they haven't asked me if I'm happy with the service. I received no questionnaire either.'

In this report, the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.