Caremark (Bromley)

Updated 13 September 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

Our inspection was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support our inspection.

What we did before the inspection

Before the inspection, we reviewed relevant information that we had about the service including any notifications of incidents affecting the safety and wellbeing of people. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We also checked the last inspection report.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with the registered manager, a nominated individual who represented the provider organisation, a field care supervisor, a training manager, an administrator and four care staff.

We reviewed documents and records that related to people’s care and the management of the service. We reviewed nine care plans and seven staff recruitment files. We also looked at staff training records, audits, rotas, complaint and incident records.

After the inspection

We spoke with 14 people and 10 relatives by telephone to obtain their feedback about the service. We continued to seek further evidence and clarification from the provider, which we have included in the report. We requested feedback from social care professionals.

Updated 13 September 2019

About the service

Caremark (Bromley) provides personal care people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, the service provided personal care to 120 people. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and relatives told us the service was safe. There were procedures to protect people from abuse. Risks associated with their needs were assessed and managed. People were supported with taking their medicines by staff. There were enough staff in the service. The management team were revising where staff were deployed to ensure they had enough time to travel between visits to people. We have made a recommendation about call monitoring systems because not all office staff knew how to access the system being used.

Accidents and incidents in the service were analysed to prevent reoccurrence. Staff followed safe practices to prevent and control infections. Staff were recruited safely and their backgrounds checked before they started working for the service.

Staff were supported with training to ensure their skills and knowledge were up to date. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported with maintaining their health and nutrition. The service worked with health care professionals, to ensure their health needs were met.

Staff were respectful and caring towards people. Staff understood the importance of promoting equality and diversity. People were supported to maintain their independence. Staff communicated with people appropriately, according to their communication needs.

Care plans were personalised. People were encouraged to attend community events or activities that were arranged by the provider. People knew how to make complaints about the service. Complaints were investigated by the registered manager.

Staff felt supported by the management team. Quality assurance systems included obtaining feedback from people and relatives. Spot checks took place to check staff followed safe procedures. The registered manager was committed to making continual improvements to the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (report published 1 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.