We carried out a review of the data available to us about Remark! Living on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Remark! Living, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
Remark! Living provided safe care to people who use the service. There were systems in place to ensure people were protected from avoidable harm. These included appropriate safeguarding procedures, regular risk assessment and risk management processes and safe staff recruitment.
People’s medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines when needed.
There were enough suitable staff deployed to support people as agreed.
People’s needs, and preferences had been assessed before the service commenced. People and when appropriate their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing the care and the support provided by the service.
Each person had an up to date, person centred care plan that described people’s care needs and preferences. It also included basic information about who people were and what they liked to do. Staff held regular conversations with their managers on how to best support people in meeting their needs and achieving their goals. This included advocating for people when needed and accompanying them to various leisure activities in the community.
Staff asked for people’s consent before they provided care to people. Staff said involving people and helping them to progress and be independent as much as possible was an important part of the service provided.
People were supported to live a healthy life. When required staff helped people to have a nutritious diet that met people’s dietary needs and preferences. Staff supported people to have access to health services when needed.
Staff had appropriate skills and received suitable training to support people safely and effectively. Regular supervision and spot checks by the managers ensured care provided by staff was monitored and improved if needed.
People and relatives were happy with the support provided by the service. They described staff as caring and kind. Staff knew how to communicate with people in the way people could understand and respond to. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care.
The service promoted equality and inclusion ensuring everything possible was done to help people to receive the support they needed.
There was a positive team ethos that promoted an open communication and supportive working environment.
The managers knew their roles and responsibilities. They managed the service effectively to ensure it met all the Requirements of the Social Health and Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Appropriate checks were carried out by the managers to ensure that the service and staff performance was monitored.
People using the service and their relatives were involved in planning, reviewing and monitoring of the care provided. The outcomes of the latest satisfaction survey showed that people were satisfied with staff and the care they received.
Rating at last inspection: Good (last report published on 02 January 2017)
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service and we will revisit it in the future to check if they continue to provide good quality of care to people who use it.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Remark Living provides care and support to people in their own homes . They work with hearing impaired British Sign Language (BSL) people who are elderly, disabled or have additional needs to help them remain independent at home. At the time of the inspection there were twenty nine people using the service.
The service had 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.
People told us they were safe. Medicines were managed safely. Risk assessments identified the risks to people and how these could be minimised. Staff were available to meet people's needs.
People were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs would be met. Managers and staff had received training on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Staff had access to ongoing training. They were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities.
Staff knew how to respond to people's needs in a way that promoted their individual preferences and choices regarding their care. People were supported to eat and drink.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people's preferences, likes and dislikes regarding their care and support needs.
Care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people's safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people's needs.
The service regularly requested feedback from people who use the service. People, relatives and staff said the management were approachable and supportive.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. People felt confident to express any concerns and these were addressed by the registered manager.
Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We read the records of five people who used the service. The records all contained contracts that included details of the service to be provided and fees. The contracts we saw had been signed by the people who used the service. One of the relatives we spoke with told us that had been present when staff explained the service to their relative they told us 'they explained everything before (name of the person) signed up.'
The people who used the service had different levels of disability and staff had to use a variety of communication tools to communicate with them and obtain their consent. For example all the staff were able to communicate using British Sign Language (BSL). This meant that people were able to use BSL to give consent.
People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The assessments included information such as an assessment of the person's home environment, information about what they liked to do, medical history, preferred method of communication and the times they wanted care to be delivered.
Arrangements were in place to ensure that people who were vulnerable were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had completed safeguarding and adult protection training and were clear about their responsibilities to report concerns.
Staff received appropriate professional development. All staff received mandatory and statutory training that was relevant to their role. Staff told us they felt supported and that the service provided them with training and development that enabled them to do their jobs well.
People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. We saw that customers were regularly asked to give their views of the service through customer feedback forms.
You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.