We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cambuslodge UK Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cambuslodge UK Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Cambuslodge is a small care home providing personal care to five adults with learning disabilities in Fulham.
People’s experience of using this service
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. The service advocated to make sure people had their choice of activities and the healthcare support they needed.
People told us they were happy living in the service and were treated with kindness and respect by staff. Comments included “I’m happy here” and “staff are very nice, incredible really.”
People were encouraged to have responsibilities in the running of the house and to develop their independence. People told us they did activities of their choice and were supported to pursue their interests. The home had a friendly dog who had lived there for many years. People using the service loved the dog and played a role in walking, feeding and looking after her.
Risks to people’s safety were managed in a way which promoted their independence. Care workers were recruited safely and there were enough staff available to support people safely in the house and to access their activities.
People were in charge in planning and reviewing their care and setting goals for their independence. People increased their independence which enhanced their involvement in the local community and relationships with family and friends. People were supported to communicate well and speak up about their views.
Care workers received enough training and supervision to develop their skills and meet people’s needs. Staff were proactive in addressing people’s health needs and promoting healthier lifestyles and balanced diets. 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
The manager and director were closely involved in the running of the service and promoted an open culture. There were regular meetings of the staff team and residents and strong links with other services in the area.
The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.
As part of the thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.
The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 7 March 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a routine inspection in line with our re-inspection guidelines. No concerns had been raised about the service.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection guidelines. We may inspect sooner if any concerning information is received.
Cambuslodge provides a supported living service to five people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. The service is located in a terraced house, and consists of five bedrooms, a staff office, a large kitchen and dining room, lounge and two shared bathrooms.
The service had a registered manager who had been in post since 2001. 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 were supported to plan their care through a system of person-centred reviews. This enabled people to speak up on their health, support and daily activities. There were systems in place to support people to speak up through keyworking and residents meetings, including using accessible formats such as photographs. People who used the service were involved in the day to day running of the house, including household tasks.
Where people had complained, managers had investigated the complaint and taken appropriate measures, but people were also encouraged to speak up and make complaints about other services when they were not satisfied. Managers used the review system to ensure that people and their relatives were satisfied with their care.
The provider carried out suitable checks to ensure that staff were suitable for their roles and that there were enough staff on duty. Staff received good levels of training, appraisal and supervision to ensure that they had the skills to carry out their roles, and managers gave feedback to people on their performance.
People’s rights were protected by ensuring that they had consented to their care and that they had the capacity to do so. The provider ensured they could demonstrate they were working in people’s best interests if they were unable to make a decision for themselves. People were supported to eat healthily, and staff provided support to people to attend health appointments and maintain good health.
Risks to people were managed in a person-centred way which promoted their independence, and there were measures for staff to follow to ensure that people were safe and independent. Risks to people were regularly reviewed by staff. Medicines were safely stored and administered, and checked by staff and an external auditor. Daily handovers were used to ensure the service was safe and that people were happy and had received the appropriate support.
People had extensive activity programmes which included trips and holidays run by the provider. They were also involved in activities in the community, and the provider maintained good communication with the activity providers. People and their relatives told us that they were treated with respect and made choices about their daily lives and we saw friendly interactions between people who used the service and the staff team. One person told us “We get good care.”
We conducted an unannounced inspection of Cambuslodge on 8 December 2014. The service provides care and support for up to five people with mental health problems or learning disabilities. There were five people using the service when we visited.
At our last inspection on 19 December 2013 the service met the regulations we inspected.
The service had 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. The registered manager and staff had received training on safeguarding adults and were able to explain the possible signs of abuse as well as the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns.
Risk assessments were based on people’s individual needs and lifestyle choices. We saw evidence that people were involved in decisions relating to risks they wanted to take in order to increase their independence.
There were enough, safely recruited staff available to meet people’s needs. Staffing numbers were adjusted depending on people’s requirements.
Medicines were managed safely. Records were kept when medicines were administered, and appropriate checks were undertaken by a second member of staff. Records were clear and accurate and regular auditing of medicines was undertaken.
Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is a law to protect people who do not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Staff were also trained in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which are part of the Mental Capacity Act and exist to make sure that people’s freedom is not inappropriately restricted where they lack the capacity to make certain decisions. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities.
People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs were met. People had care plans in place that reflected their assessed needs and staff followed these.
Recruitment procedures ensured that only people who were deemed suitable worked within the service. There was an induction programme for new staff, which prepared them for their role. Staff were provided with a range of ongoing training to help them carry out their duties. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal to support them to meet people’s needs.
People were supported to eat and drink a balanced diet that they enjoyed and their nutritional needs were monitored. People were supported effectively with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals. People were involved in making decisions about what kind of support they wanted.
People told us staff treated them in a caring and respectful way. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and we observed positive interactions between people and staff throughout our visit. Staff demonstrated a detailed understanding of people’s life histories and their individual preferences and choices.
Staff and people who used the service felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback on the service. They knew how to make complaints and there was an effective complaints policy and procedure in place. We found complaints were dealt with appropriately and in accordance with the policy.
The service carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of the service and to plan improvements. Where concerns were identified action plans were put in place to rectify these.
The provider had policies in place to support the dietary needs of people who used the service. People had access to nutritious food and had their personal food preferences respected. Staff supported people to take part in food preparation and encouraged them to remain healthy through appropriate dietary choices.
The service was clean and tidy. Support workers were responsible for cleanliness and encouraged people who used the service to take part in basic domestic duties as part of life skills training. The service had an up to date infection control policy and we saw that staff and people who used the service observed good hand hygiene practice.
The premises were well maintained and safe. The environment was suitable for the care needs of the people who used the service. Each person had their own private bedroom with access to communal leisure and eating areas.
The provider used effective recruitment processes to select candidates for vacant posts. Appropriate pre-employment checks safeguarded people who used the service.