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

Archived: Carewatch (Tamar)

Suite 9, 237 Union Street, Plymouth, Devon, PL1 3HQ (01752) 275100

Provided and run by:
Carewatch Care Services Limited

All Inspections

1 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

A previous inspection at Carewatch Tamar on 31 January 2013 had identified that improvements were necessary. Improvements were needed with regard to communication with people who use the service and the support given to staff. In addition, care plans had not always been reviewed or updated. Effective quality monitoring systems were not in place. During our inspection on 1 May 2013 we found that the provider had taken positive action and necessary improvements had been made.

25 people were receiving personal care from Carewatch Tamar. We spoke with three of those people and one relative. They told us that the service had improved, albeit slowly. One person said, "They do come when they should. They call if there is a delay; that's a lot better now." Another person told us, "Everything seems to be going smoothly now. They have been a lot better in recent months." One relative told us that, "The carers that come are excellent."

We found that improvements had been made in care assessments and reviews. People told us that telephone communication with the agency had improved. Staff told us, and records showed, that supervisions and appraisals were being done. Care workers had completed required training and had access to additional training.

The manager had recently been given support in using quality assurance tools and developing effective monitoring systems. Improvements had been made in quality assurance, such as increasing the number of spot checks.

31 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

An inspection at Carewatch Tamar on 15 and 17 July 2012 identified that improvements were required in relation to updating of care plans, staff training and supervision and quality assurance systems. We asked the provider to submit an action plan to tell us how they would make the necessary improvements.

We found that the provider had made some improvements in updating care records but had not fully implemented their action plan. We spoke with Commissioners for adult support services for Plymouth City Council who had a contract with the agency. They told us that the agency had made progress but needed to improve their recording of people's need assessments.

The provider's action plan in respect of training stated that staff would undertake on line refresher training by the end of December 2012. We found this had been initiated but not all staff had completed or started the training. Records showed that some interactive training about professional standards and boundaries had been recently delivered. Moving and handling training which was out of date July 2012 had not been yet been updated. Staff supervisions and appraisals were being done more regularly, but not consistently.

Quality assurance systems were not robust. There was not an ongoing cycle of improvement. Issues were identified and partially responded to.

17, 19 July 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services on 17 and 19 July 2012. We asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency as part of a targeted inspection programme of domiciliary care agencies. We paid particular attention to how people's dignity was upheld and how they can make choices about their care.

We used home visits to people who use the service and to their main carers (relatives or friends) to gain views about the service. We visited three people in their homes and spoke to a relative of a person we had visited. In addition we spoke with ten care workers and two managers from the service.

All of the people that we spoke to who used this service were positive about it and felt that their care needs were met. People who used the service told us that they felt their care was good and that their care workers were friendly, reliable and they felt safe with them. One person told us 'They are all very kind and know exactly the help I need and what I want to do myself, independently'. However, during the inspection we identified that one of the three people we spoke with had been provided with personal care which was not in their care plan. Their needs for personal care had not been assessed which meant that the care was not planned or delivered in a way that protected their safety.

People we spoke with who used the service said that they knew how to raise concerns and who they would contact. One person told us 'I'm very happy with the way I'm looked after but I'd soon say if I was not happy'.

We were told by people who used the service that staff were competent in the care they provided and that they thought their care workers were fully trained to meet their needs. However, this was not consistent with training records seen during our inspection or with comments from some staff we spoke with.