You are here

Archived: Cambridge Park Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 April 2015

Cambridge Park Care Home is registered to provide residential and personal care for up to 60 older people who may have dementia related conditions. Accommodation is provided over two floors with both stairs and lift access to the first floor. Accommodation for people living with dementia is located on the ground floor in the Courtyard Suite. The first floor residential accommodation is known as the Evergreen suite.

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.

This inspection was unannounced and took place over two days. The previous inspection of the service took place on 13 August 2013 and was found to be compliant with all of the regulations inspected.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and were cared for in a clean environment. Comments included, “I feel she is safe here as there is always someone about. I like that the staff regularly check people” and “I call this my home.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the registered provider’s policies and procedures in order to protect vulnerable people from harm or abuse.

Each person had a set of risk assessments which identified hazards they may face and provided guidance to staff to manage any risk of harm.

The 47 people who used the service were cared for by sufficient numbers of well trained staff who were recruited into their roles safely and had undergone appropriate checks before commencing their employment. Two activities staff provided 60 hours of activities each week, including alternate weekends.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. There was a reporting system in place for staff to follow in the event of errors occurring whilst administering medicines.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure the rights of people who may need support to make decisions are protected. When people had been assessed as being unable to make complex decisions, there were records of meetings with family and other professionals involved in their care. The meetings were held in order that any decisions made on the person’s behalf were done so after consideration of what would be in their best interests.

The lunchtime experience was relaxed and had a social atmosphere with lots of chatter and interaction from staff. The lunch was well presented and was served quickly so that it remained hot. Tables had tablecloths and napkins; fresh flowers were on each table.

The ground floor had been designed to accommodate people living with dementia. We saw bespoke dementia-friendly doors to people’s bedrooms and dementia-friendly signage was used to identify bathrooms. The ground floor location for people living with dementia meant they could access the fresh air in the enclosed garden area.

Comments from people who used the service about the staff included, “They care about me more than I do about myself” and “The carers are very good. They make sure you feel at home.” People told us staff understood their privacy and dignity needs. Staff knocked on people’s doors before entering rooms and people were asked discreetly if they needed to go to the bathroom.

Members of staff were able to describe to us the individual needs of people in their care, including explanations of what gestures and expressions people would use to indicate their preferences, choices and wellbeing.

People’s care plans were written round their individual needs and wishes. Care plans contained detailed information on people’s health needs, preferences and personal history including people’s interests and things that brought them pleasure.

A number of activities were organised throughout the week. A display board using pictures provided information of what was taking place each day.

Each of the 10 people we spoke with told us they had no cause to complain about the home but felt able to do so if necessary.

The service was well organised which enabled staff to respond to people’s needs in a proactive and planned way. Throughout our inspection visit we observed staff working well as a team, providing care in an organised, calm and caring manner.

Each member of staff had their competency assessed regularly. This included checks on their knowledge of people’s care plans and personal histories.

The service had recently sent surveys to people who used the service and staff. The survey showed 100% of the people who used the service felt staff treated them well and it was meeting their needs. In addition, every person felt the activities were good, the food was nutritious and sufficient, and the staff were suitably trained.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 April 2015

The service was safe. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and understood how to identify and report any abuse.

People said they felt safe. Risks to people and others were managed effectively.

People’s medicines were stored securely and administered safely by appropriately trained staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 April 2015

The service was effective. Staff had been well trained and supported through supervision and appraisal of their work.

People were supported to have a balanced diet.

As far as possible people were involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 17 April 2015

The service was caring. People felt staff treated them with kindness and as an individual.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected. Staff respected people’s personal space and always asked permission to enter their rooms.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 April 2015

The service was responsive. Care plans contained up-to-date information on people’s needs, preferences and risk management.

Two activity co-ordinators were employed to deliver a total of 60 hours of activities per week. People participated in a wide variety of activities, many of which were tailored to individual needs.

People were aware of how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 April 2015

The service was well led. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Accidents and incidents were monitored and trends were analysed to minimise the risks and any reoccurrence of incidents.

The registered manager promoted a good team spirit and staff felt they were supported.