Caremark (Kingston)

Updated 10 November 2023

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

This inspection was carried out by 1 inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care for people living in their own houses and flats. This includes older people, and people with dementia.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was announced. The service was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection. Inspection activity started on 8 October and ended on 31 October 2023. We visited the provider’s office on 13 October 2023.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed all the information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used all this information to plan our inspection. The provider was not asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to this inspection. A PIR is information providers send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection

We spoke in person with the director as the registered manager was on leave. We contacted and spoke with 8 people using the service, 2 relatives, 4 healthcare professionals and 10 staff to get their experience and views about the care provided. We reviewed a range of records. This included 6 people’s care and medicines records. We looked at 5 staff files in relation to recruitment, training, and staff supervision. We checked a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including audits, policies, and procedures. We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We requested additional evidence to be sent to us after our inspection visit. This included special initiatives unique to the provider, employment information, training matrix and audits. We received the information which was used as part of our inspection.

Updated 10 November 2023

About the service

Caremark (Kingston) is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people in their own homes and flats.

The Care Quality Commission (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. At the time of the inspection 65 people were receiving a personal care.

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

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were provided with a safe service and staff had a safe environment to work in. There were suitable numbers of appropriately recruited staff employed to meet people’s needs. This meant people were supported to enjoy their lives and live safely. Risks to people were assessed, monitored, and recorded by the registered manager and staff who updated records when required. Accidents, incidents, and safeguarding concerns were reported, investigated, and recorded appropriately. People were supported and prompted to take their medicines, by staff as needed. Infection control procedures were followed.

People and their relatives told us that effective care was provided, they had not experienced discrimination and their equality and diversity needs were met. Staff were well-trained and supervised. People said staff provided good, focused care that met their needs, and they were encouraged to discuss their health needs. Any changes to them or concerns were passed on to appropriate community-based health care professionals. This included any required transitioning of services if the people’s needs changed. People were protected by staff, from nutrition and hydration risks, and they were encouraged to choose healthy and balanced diets that also met their likes, dislikes, and preferences.

People said staff provided care and support in a friendly manner, paying attention to small details which made all the difference. Staff acknowledged people’s rights to privacy, dignity, confidentiality, and people felt respected. They were encouraged and supported to be independent and do things for themselves, wherever possible. This improved their quality of life and promoted their self-worth. Staff were compassionate, cared about people, and passionate about the person to whom they provided a service.

The provider responded to the people’s needs and assessed, reviewed, and appropriately adjusted their care plans as required. This included any communication needs. People were provided with person-centred care, given choices, and encouraged to follow their routines, interests and maintain contact with friends and relatives so that social isolation was minimised. They received enough information about the service to make their own decisions regarding whether they wished to use it. Complaints were recorded and investigated.

The service was well-led. The provider’s culture was positive, open, and there was a clearly identified leadership and management structure. The provider had a vision and values that staff understood, followed and they were aware of their responsibilities and accountability. Staff said they were happy to raise any concerns they may have with the provider and take responsibility. The quality of the service was regularly reviewed, and any required changes made to improve the care and support people received. This was in a way that suited people best. There were well established effective working partnerships that promoted the needs of people being met outside the provider’s remit. Registration requirements were met.

Why we inspected

The last rating for this service was Good (published 24 August 2018).

We undertook this inspection to check whether the service was continuing to provide a good, rated service to people.

The overall rating for the service has remained Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Caremark (Kingston) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.