Caremark (Croydon)

Updated 27 November 2018

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 is 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 12 and 15 October 2018 and was announced. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

One inspector undertook the inspection. Before our inspection we reviewed the information, we held about the service which included statutory notifications we had received in the last 12 months and the Provider Information Return (PIR) the registered manager had sent us. The PIR is a form we ask the provider to complete prior to our visit which gives us some key information about the service, including what the service does well, what they could do better and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we spoke with the provider, the registered manager, three members of office staff and three care staff. We looked at six people’s care records, four staff files as well as a range of other records about people's care, staff and how the service was managed.

After our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service and seven family members of people who used the service. The registered manager also sent us additional information such as training records, service user and staff handbooks.

Updated 27 November 2018

Caremark (Croydon) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of our inspection 35 people were using the service.

Not everyone using this service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This inspection took place on 12 and 15 October 2018. At our last comprehensive inspection in December 2017 we gave the service an overall rating of ‘requires improvement’ in the key questions of safe and well led. This was because people told us staff were often late and the provider did not let people know or provide alternative care. This had previously been an issue during our inspection in October 2015. We found the provider was not always effectively monitoring, assessing and improving the service and as a result there was a breach of regulation under the key question of well led. After our inspection in December 2017 the provider wrote to us to tell us how they would make improvements to meet the regulations.

At this inspection we found the provider had used the learning from the previous inspections to make improvements at the service. Systems were in place to reduce staff lateness and to let people know if staff were running late. Where possible care staff worked in the same areas to help reduce travel time and the agency had employed more care staff that could drive. This helped when people using the service were not near public transport links.

People’s and their family members trusted staff and felt safe when staff supported them. There were systems in place to help make sure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Staff helped make sure people were safe and knew the risks people faced each day. They took steps to reduce those risks while still encouraging people's independence.

There was a 24-hour call system in operation. This ensured support and advice was always available for people and staff.

People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support to do their job well. Staff recruitment made sure only suitable staff were employed to work at the service. Staff felt supported by managers through regular supervision and team meetings.

People and their family members were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support and the care records reflected this.

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

People and their family members liked their regular staff and thought they were caring. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. When required, staff supported people with their activities and interests, both in their own home and in the community.

People were asked about their food and drink choices and staff assisted them with their meals when required.

People and their family members said they would complain if they needed to and knew who to complain to.

People were contacted regularly to make sure they were happy with the service and spot checks helped review the quality of the care provided.

We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.