Archived: Carewatch (Woking)

Updated 25 November 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 9 October 2015 and was carried out by two inspectors. We gave the provider 48 hours notice of our visit because we wanted to ensure the registered manager and key staff were available to support the inspection process.

Before the inspection we reviewed the evidence we had about the service including notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law. We did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) as this inspection was brought forward. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager and deputy manager. We looked at the care records of eight people, including their assessments, care plans and risk assessments. We looked at six staff recruitment files and other records relating to staff support and training. We also looked at records used to monitor the quality of the service, such as the provider’s own audits of different aspects of the service.

We spoke with seven people that used the service and seven relatives by telephone to hear their views about the care and support provided. We spoke with eight care workers by telephone to ask them about the support and training they received.

Updated 25 November 2015

Carewatch (Woking) provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. The service is owned and operated by Carewatch Care Services Limited, which has home care branches throughout England. There were 61 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The inspection took place on 9 October 2015 and was announced.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.

Most people said their care workers arrived on time but some people told us their care workers regularly arrived late. Most care workers told us they did not always have enough travelling time built into their rotas to make all their visits on time. They said their rotas often included ‘back-to-back’ calls, which meant there was no travelling time at all between visits. Staff told us that they always stayed for the correct length of time but this meant they were often late for subsequent visits. We have made a recommendation about this.

Some relatives told us that care workers did not have an adequate understanding of how to support people living with dementia. Care workers identified dementia as an area in which they needed further training to meet people’s needs effectively. They said they had received an introduction to dementia but that they needed further training to equip them with the skills they needed to provide effective care for people living with this condition. We have made a recommendation about this.

People told us they felt safe when staff provided their care. They said their care workers followed the guidelines in their care plans and ensured they were comfortable when giving personal care. The agency had carried out risk assessments to ensure that the person receiving care and the staff supporting them were kept safe. All staff responsible for supporting people with their medicines received training in this area and their competency was assessed.

The agency took appropriate steps to keep people’s property secure. There were plans in place to ensure that people’s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency.

People were kept safe as the provider had a robust recruitment procedure to help ensure only suitable staff were employed. Staff were aware of their responsibilities should they suspect abuse was taking place and knew how to report any concerns they had.

People told us they were supported by regular staff, which was important to them. They said that their care workers always stayed the correct amount of time and that they did not feel rushed or hurried when their care was being provided. Relatives confirmed that their family members were supported by regular care workers, which meant that they received their care in a consistent way.

Care workers attended a one week induction when they started work and shadowed an experienced colleague before they provided care unaccompanied. Care workers had access to good support from their care supervisor and said they were always given enough information about people’s needs before they began to provide their care.

People were asked to record their consent to the care they received. Their nutritional needs were assessed and any dietary needs recorded in their care plans. Where people needed assistance with eating and drinking there was a care plan in place to outline the support they required. Care workers had responded appropriately if people became unwell.

Care workers were kind and caring and knew people’s needs well. People had good relationships with the care workers that supported them. Care workers treated people with respect and promoted their independence. People received support in a manner that maintained their privacy and dignity.

People’s needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure that the agency could provide the care they needed. Each person had a personalised care plan drawn up from their initial assessment, which reflected their individual needs and preferences.

The agency sought people’s views about their care and responded to their feedback. People said that they agency was flexible and willing to make changes where these had been requested. People knew how to make a complaint and those who had complained told us that the agency had responded appropriately to their concerns.

There was an open culture in which people, their relatives and staff were able to express their views and these were listened to. Staff told us that the management team was approachable and available for support and advice.

Records relating to people’s care were accurate, up to date and stored appropriately. The provider had implemented effective systems of quality monitoring, which meant that key aspects of the service were checked and audited regularly. Action had been taken to address any shortfalls identified through the quality monitoring process.

This was the first inspection of the service since its registration with the Commission.