Caremark (Redcar & Cleveland)

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We identified a breach of regulation 17: Good governance of The Health and Social Care Act 2014 due to some improvements that were required to medicine management and some care records. The service demonstrated effective processes in relation to responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and governance. Systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the service, however some improvements to records were identified at inspection. The service promoted a positive culture which was practised and promoted by the whole of the staff team. A relative commented, ““We didn’t know anything about care and they were recommended to us, they came and interviewed us and we all worked out what we needed and we are very pleased with the service.” People and staff said they were not afraid to speak up and they knew they would be listened to. There was an emphasis on learning and improving throughout the service. People, their relatives and staff were asked for their views and experiences of the service. Feedback was listened to and addressed. Staff and managers worked in partnership with visiting health and social care professionals which provided good outcomes for people. The service had inclusive leaders who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. There was a capable and compassionate management team who, with staff, worked to ensure good quality care for people in partnership with external professionals. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. The service had accessible policies and procedures that staff were aware of and kept updated with. The service demonstrated that it valued diversity in its workforce and worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for its staff.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us there was team working and they felt supported by colleagues and management. Their comments included, “I honestly think Caremark offer so much support including personal support”, “Caremark is a very good organisation to work for”, “I love coming to work” and “Caremark as a company are there for you, all levels of the company are good at helping.”

People and staff felt able to speak up to management. The management team worked to ensure there was clear understanding of the values and philosophy of care provision shared by all staff. Systems were in place to ensure people and staff were involved and listened to. New staff received support and training which helped them to show those values in their daily work with people. The quality and vision of the service was regularly discussed with staff during a range of meetings. The positive service culture was promoted by leaders and staff.

Several staff members told us it was the best organisation they had worked for. Staff told us there was very good leadership in the service. Feedback from staff and the registered manager demonstrated leadership was based on inclusivity and how management understood the context in which care was delivered and how that had a positive impact on the culture and values of the service. Staff told us they thought the manager led by example and they had the skills, knowledge and experience to manage the service. A staff member commented, “I have never had any issues, supervisors are always here when needed, easy to contact and available when out and about on calls. Management are very approachable.”

Policies and processes showed how the registered manager and their team shared good practice amongst meetings, audits and feedback captured good examples of a positive culture where people were happy with the service. People were listened to and engaged with to help ensure they received person-centred care.

Staff and people said they had confidence in the management team and would not be afraid of raising any concerns. They confirmed they felt listened to. A person commented, “I can phone the office anytime and they have a mobile out of hours number which goes straight through to the supervisors. The office staff are very helpful.”

Processes were in place for staff and people to speak up. The provider had a clear whistle blowing policy. Staff could raise concerns and the information about how to do this was available in the service and within the staff handbook. There were engagement surveys sent to people using the service, and staff. Regular staff meetings took place. There was a complaints procedure. Staff and people said they had confidence in the management team and would not be afraid of raising any concerns.

Staff told us they felt valued and respected in their roles. All said they felt well-supported by the management, some said they were well-supported personally and professionally. A staff member told us, “Supervisors are good, they are easy to contact when out and about on calls. I think they look after you 100%.”

Policies and practices were in place to help maintain a workforce in which equality, equity and exclusivity prevailed. This was largely driven by the culture and attitudes of the staff, who valued the whole of the staff team and helped to support one another on both a professional and personal level.

Staff and leaders knew their responsibilities around quality and safety monitoring and governance. The registered manager and senior staff could clearly explain governance systems in the service and their individual responsibilities, however there were areas of improvement identified at inspection as previously described.

We identified a breach of regulation 17: Good governance of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 Regulated Activities 2014 due to some improvements needed to some records regarding medicines management and risk assessments, detailed in the safe section. There were mostly effective governance systems in place, but some improvements were required to some records as identified. Regular audits and checks were carried out in the main areas of the service, such as around care records, health and safety, staff practice. The registered manager and the provider’s compliance department supported the management team by completing reviews of quality and safety of the service in line with regulatory requirements.

People and relatives told us the service worked well with other agencies so people could access appropriate help and support when required. A relative commented, “Our carers are well trained and know what they are doing. They do everything they are meant to do and more. For example, the other day we had a problem with the hospital bed and one of them had a really good look and found the problem and then we phoned the company and it got sorted out.”

Staff and the registered manager explained how they worked with healthcare, social care and community partners. They had good knowledge of the local services and support systems and how to access them. The service had had a very good working relationship with the local authority and had introduced initiatives such as dog therapy and the night support service to help support and benefit members of the local community.

We did not receive any feedback from partner agencies relevant to this quality statement.

Management and people’s records included communication with partners such as healthcare professionals, social care teams and specialist services. The registered manager ensured the service was aware of their local systems, so staff could work well with partners.

Staff told us there were opportunities for training and development. They felt there was an emphasis on learning and improving throughout the service. A staff member commented, “I received an induction which included 3 days face to face and on-line training and 4 days of shadowing opportunities. The training was in depth, and I received help when I needed it.” The service demonstrated it focused on continuous learning and improvement and encouraged ways of delivering positive outcomes and an improved quality of life for people. The service was involved in initiatives such as providing therapy dog visits to some people using the service and other people in the community. A relative commented, “They [Caremark] even have therapy dogs, staff bring and [Name] loves them.” Staff and leaders had a good understanding of how to make improvement happen. Leaders encouraged staff to speak up with ideas for improvement.

The provider had clear systems in place to ensure learning and improvement was considered within audits, staff meetings and quality assurance activities. There was clear evidence of changes that had been made to the service to address checks and audits outcomes and in response to people and staff feedback. Processes to ensure that learning happens when things go wrong, and from examples of good practice were established. External quality assurance arrangements were in place to monitor the internal governance and identified any potential shortfalls and monitored actions to reflect and improve the service on an ongoing basis.