Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Caremark (Walsall & Wolverhampton), Planetary Road, Wolverhampton.

Caremark (Walsall & Wolverhampton) in Planetary Road, Wolverhampton is a Homecare agencies specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia, learning disabilities, personal care, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The last inspection date here was 27th February 2019

Caremark (Walsall & Wolverhampton) is managed by Williams CM Ltd.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Caremark (Walsall & Wolverhampton)
      Planetary Business Park
      Planetary Road
      Wolverhampton
      WV13 3SW
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01922215000

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-02-27
    Last Published 2019-02-27

Local Authority:

    Wolverhampton

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

29th January 2019 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

About the service:

Caremark (Walsall & Wolverhampton) is a Domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people with a variety of needs over the time of the inspection. This included people aged over and under 65 who may be living with dementia, have a learning disability/autistic spectrum disorder, physical disability or sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection the service supported 83 people with personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People and relatives told us they felt safe with care staff and staff were able to demonstrate a good awareness of each person's safety and how to minimise identified risks to their safety. People and care staff told us they were able to attend people’s care calls in a timely way and stop for the duration of their planned care call.

People were supported by care staff that were caring, showed compassion and expressed genuine interest about the people they cared for. People received person centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people, their needs and preferences and used this to develop a good relationship with the people they visited.

People were supported by care staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood, felt confident and well supported in their role. People's health was supported as staff worked with other health care providers when needed to support people’s healthcare needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff understood that they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People's care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences and the staff were able to explain recent changes to people’s care. Where there was changes that were highlighted by people to us, they agreed this was shared with the provider. We saw the service was responsive to this information.

People knew how to complain and that any concerns would be listened and responded to by the provider. The registered manager saw complaints as useful feedback from which to develop and improve the service.

People, relatives, staff and professionals gave us a positive picture as to the quality of care people received, and also said they were able to share their views with staff.

Quality monitoring systems included audits, spot checks on staff practice and regular checks on people’s satisfaction with the service they received, by surveys, phone calls or visits from the service’s management. The provider has systems in place to ensure they kept up to date with developments in the sector and changes in the law.

People and relatives told us the registered manager and staff were approachable, organised, listened and responded to them and acted on feedback when they shared this with them.

Rating at last inspection: The rating for the service at our last inspection was ‘requires improvement’ with our last report published on 11 November 2017.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was due based on our scheduling targets.

Enforcement:

No enforcement action was required.

Follow up:

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

16th October 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 17 October 2017 and was announced. At the last inspection completed on 07 and 08 February 2017 we rated the location as ‘requires improvement’. We found the provider was not meeting the legal requirements regarding the effective management and governance of the service in addition to submitting statutory notifications to CQC. A statutory notification is required by law where there is a significant event such as a serious injury or allegation of abuse. At this inspection we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the law although further improvement was still needed.

Caremark (Walsall and Wolverhampton) is a domiciliary care agency that is registered to provide personal care. The service supports people with a range of needs; including older people and people living with a disability or health needs. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 116 people who were living in their own homes.

The provider had recruited a new manager who was in post at the time of the inspection. They were not yet registered with CQC as the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found improvements were being made to risk assessments and the recording of accidents and incidents to ensure people were sufficiently protected from harm. People had not always received their care visits at their preferred time or delivered by a consistent team of care staff. The manager was in the process of recruiting additional care staff to address this concern. We found poor records around people’s medicines meant assurances could not be given that medicines were administered as prescribed.

People were supported by a care staff team who understood how to protect them from potential abuse. Pre-employment checks were completed prior to new staff members starting work.

People’s rights were upheld by care staff who understood how to make decisions in the best interests of those who lacked capacity. Decisions made in people’s best interests were not recorded. People were cared for by care staff who were supported in their roles. The skills of care staff were to be developed through newly enhanced training and development programmes.

People were supported to have sufficient quantities of food and drink that met their dietary needs. People’s day to day health needs were met.

People were supported by a staff team who were kind and caring in their approach. People were supported to make choices about their care. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were upheld and promoted.

People’s needs and preferences were understood by care staff. People felt involved in making decisions about their care and were aware of their care plan. People felt involved in reviewing their care needs. People were able to raise a complaint when required and received an appropriate response.

People were cared for by a service with a new management team who were committed to making the required improvements. Improvement plans were in place across the service to address areas in which the required standards were not being met. The manager was developing an open and transparent culture within the service and welcomed feedback provided during the inspection.

7th February 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 7 and 8 February 2017 and was announced. This location has not been previously inspected under the current ownership.

Caremark (Walsall & Wolverhampton) is a domiciliary care agency that is registered to provide personal care. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 89 people living in their own homes, most of whom were older people. There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

People were protected by a staff team who could describe the signs of potential abuse and knew how to report concerns. However, we found concerns were not always consistently reported by staff. Staff could describe how to manage risks to people while delivering care. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reported. However, the management team were not always completing effective reviews of the actions taken by staff to ensure people were kept safe.

People told us there were sufficient numbers of staff but they did not always receive their care visits at the time they needed them. Pre-employment checks were completed before care staff started work to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. People were happy with the support they received with their medicines. We found the registered manager was not always able to confirm people had received their medicines as prescribed. This was due to issues such as gaps in medicines records not being investigated and resolved.

People were not always fully enabled to consent to the care they received. Where people lacked mental capacity decisions had not always been made on their behalf using the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were happy with the skills and experience of their care staff. They told us they were also happy with the support they received with their food and drink.

People told us they were supported by a care staff team who were kind and caring towards them. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make choices about the day to day care they received and their independence was promoted.

People told us they had raised concerns with office staff and did not feel their concerns had been listened to or appropriately responded to. We did however see that where the management team were made aware of formal complaints these were investigated and responded to. Relatives told us they were fully involved in developing care plans however people were not always aware of their own care plan. We found care plans were in place that reflected people’s preferences and these were regularly reviewed. Care plans did not always clearly outline all actions required by care staff to meet people’s needs.

People told us they were happy with the service they received from care staff and most people knew who the manager was. They told us improvements were needed in communication with the office team. People were cared for by a staff team who were motivated in their roles and felt supported by the management team.

We found quality assurance systems were in place but these were not always effective in identifying the areas of improvement required in the service. Where some issues and concerns were identified these were not investigated and resolved in a timely way in order to reduce risks to people and ensure they were receiving the care they required.

We found the provider was not meeting the regulations relating to the submission of statutory notifications to CQC and the effective management of the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

 

 

Latest Additions: