Our inspection of Caremark (Ealing) took place on 15 May 2017 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because staff members may be out of the office undertaking assessments or reviewing care in people’s homes. We needed to be sure that someone would be available when the inspection took place. We returned to the service to complete our inspection on 22 May 2017.

Caremark (Ealing) is a domiciliary care service that provides a range of supports to adults and young people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service provided care and support to 39 people. The majority of these were older people living with conditions such as dementia and physical conditions associated with ageing.

Caremark (Ealing) was re-registered with The Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2015 due to a change of address. This was their first inspection under their new registration.

The service had a 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

People who used the service spoke positively about the care that was provided to them. Staff members also spoke positively about the people who they supported.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential areas of concern and prevent abuse from happening. Staff members demonstrated that they understood how to safeguard the people whom they were supporting. Safeguarding training and information was provided to staff.

Risk assessments were up to date and contained information for staff members on how to manage risk. Although we found that a risk assessment had not been completed for a person’s nutritional needs, their care plan contained detailed information and guidance for staff members on how to support them.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people’s medicines were given and recorded. Staff members had received training in safe administration of medicines. Information about the medicines that people received was maintained in people’s homes.

Staff recruitment processes were in place to ensure that workers employed by the service were suitable and of good character. Staff training met national standards for staff working in social care organisations and additional training had been provided to ensure that people’s individual needs were met.

.

Staffing rotas met the current support needs of people using the service. There was a system for ensuring that care calls were managed and monitored. Staff and people who used the service had access to management support outside of office hours.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. Capacity assessments were in place for people. People were asked for their consent to any care or support that was provided.

Staff members spoke positively and respectfully about their approaches to care and the people that they provided care to.

People’s care plans showed that religious, cultural and other needs and preferences were supported. People told us that staff members respected their wishes and treated them with dignity and respect. Care plans included information about people’s communication needs and emphasised the importance of supporting people to maintain their independence.

People who used the service knew what to do if they had a concern or complaint. Complaints that had been received by the service had been investigated to people’s satisfaction.

People who used the service and staff members spoke positively about its management. A range of processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service, such as audits and spot checks of care practice and documents, along with surveys of people’s satisfaction with