Archived: Caremark (East Riding)

We found during our inspection that there had been improvements to the quality of reviews and care planning, that people were receiving care that was person centred. Staff were now receiving appropriate training and support to meet individual needs and there was a system to ensure that calls were not missed or late.

Paperwork had been improved, and staff training had been delivered around this area. There were now monitoring systems in place regarding the quality of documentation and there was a system in place for dealing with and responding to actions identified, complaints, investigations and care planning. The records documented all of this well.

We carried out a further inspection to assess the providers progress with achieving compliance. We sent questionnaires to people who used the service, interviewed people over the telephone and looked at the results of a large survey the provider had completed. We found people were generally satisfied with the support they received although common issues were raised through all the information gathered regarding call times, capability of staff and contact with office based staff. A large amount of reviews had been undertaken but the quality of these was inconsistent.

We found staff had undergone safeguarding training. Procedures followed when escalating issues had greatly improved. The management were recording, investigating and reporting any issues to the correct authorities when required.

There had been improvements in supervision and performance based monitoring with staff. All overdue training had been completed and a system was in place to ensure these areas continued to improve.

Work around quality assurance included implementation of new systems to improve monitoring and auditing. There were gaps in recording and some documentation required further improvement to ensure it was fit for purpose.

There was a deficit in safeguarding training for staff and evidence that safeguarding concerns were not always recognised and responded to appropriately. Staffing levels were appropriate at the current time. Staff did not receive regular supervision and professional development and there was a shortfall in training for staff. This was not monitored effectively. Staff told us they did not always feel supported to carry out their roles effectively.

The service did not have effective quality assurance systems in place and there was a lack of evidence that feedback from service users and staff was acted upon appropriately. There were gaps in records including those for people who used the service.

People were protected from the risks of abuse and any suspected abuse situation was appropriately handled and referred to the local authority safeguarding team. We found that care and support staff understood their responsibilities in respect of infection control and demonstrated they followed safe practices.

People were supported by safely recruited staff that received supervision from their seniors. We found that the agency had an effective system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service it provided and it took note of what people said.

People said, "I know that Caremark do their business properly. I must say they put themselves out to try to grant my wishes", "The carers provide good care and maintain a good routine for us" and "Staff minimise the indignity of it all and they do a good job of making sure we are comfortable.'