Caremark (Coventry) maintained a Good rating across all five key questions at this announced inspection on 29 June 2017, with 250 people supported and 110 care staff employed. The service demonstrated strong leadership, safe staffing, effective training, and person-centred care, with only minor and recently resolved disruption to care continuity following a period of service expansion.
Concerns (2)
minor
Person-centred care
: “Some people told us their care had not been as consistent recently and they had a lot of new care staff visiting them.”
minorCommunication with families: “different care staff visited at weekends which disrupted the usual weekly routine.”
Strengths
· People consistently felt safe and staff demonstrated strong knowledge of safeguarding procedures.
· Robust recruitment processes including DBS checks and references completed before staff started work.
· Staff received comprehensive training including mandatory and specialist modules, with regular spot checks on practice.
· Strong continuity of care with regular staff assigned to the same people, fostering trusting relationships.
· No missed calls reported by any of the 10 service users spoken with by phone.
Caremark (Coventry) improved from Requires Improvement to Good following a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led key questions, demonstrating sustained improvements in call scheduling, quality assurance and safeguarding since the January 2020 inspection. The service of 234 people was found to be safe, well-managed and operating an open, person-centred culture with robust governance systems.
Strengths
· People and relatives spoke positively about the service and felt safe with care staff
· Improvements made to call scheduling and monitoring since previous inspection, with electronic system tracking staff arrival and departure
· Safe recruitment practices with appropriate pre-employment checks completed
· Staff trained in medication management with competencies checked regularly
· Robust quality assurance systems including audits on care plans, medicines, infection control and spot checks
Quality-Statement breakdown (11)
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Using medicines safelyGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements; Continuous learning and improving careGood
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringGood
well-led: How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candourGood
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffGood
Caremark (Coventry) was rated Good across all five key questions at its April 2015 inspection, demonstrating consistent, person-centred care delivered by well-trained, compassionate staff. The service had addressed all improvement actions from the previous September 2014 inspection and showed strong governance, quality assurance, and an open management culture.
Strengths
· People felt safe and received care from consistent, trusted staff who arrived on time and stayed the agreed length of time.
· Staff were well-trained in safeguarding, MCA principles, medication administration, and manual handling, with competency checks in place.
· Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed, and reflected people's individual preferences, histories, and desired outcomes.
· People and relatives praised staff as kind, caring, dignified, and professional, with strong relationship-building noted.
· Open and approachable management culture with whistle-blowing procedures, regular supervisions, and observed practice checks.
Caremark (Coventry) was rated Requires Improvement overall at its January 2020 inspection, with Safe and Well-Led key questions both deteriorating from Good due to inconsistent care call times, medicines recording shortfalls, and ineffective quality assurance systems. Effective, Caring and Responsive remained Good, with staff praised for their kindness, comprehensive training and partnership working with health professionals.
Concerns (6)
moderateMissed or late visits: “Over half of the people and relatives we spoke with told us the times of their care calls and the staff who provided them were inconsistent.”
moderateMedication management: “A prescribed medicine on one person's MAR had a line drawn through it indicating the medicine was no longer required. This conflicted with a handwritten entry on the top of the MAR.”
moderateGovernance: “The provider's quality assurance systems and processes were not always effective. For example, medicine audits highlighted some omissions but had not identified the additional issues we found.”
moderateStaffing levels: “The registered manager acknowledged… difficulties in maintaining enough staff to meet the obligations of their contract with the local authority. They told us, 'We have to take new customers if we have capacity or not.'”
minorCare planning: “We found one care plan lacking in detail and a second had not been fully completed. The registered manager took immediate action to address this during our visit.”
minorRecord keeping: “The tool used to check care plans did not detail the accuracy or content of care plans checked.”
Strengths
· Staff were kind, respectful and had developed positive relationships with the people they supported.
· Staff received comprehensive training including MCA, medicines administration, infection control, equality and diversity, and end of life care.
· Risks were assessed, recorded and regularly reviewed with clear risk management plans for staff.
· Complaints were investigated and responded to in line with the provider's procedure, with numerous compliments received.
· The service achieved accreditation to a pressure ulcer prevention scheme, the first domiciliary care agency in the city to do so.
Quality-Statement breakdown (20)
safe: Staffing and recruitmentRequires improvement
safe: Using medicines safelyRequires improvement
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceGood