Archived: Royal Cambridge Home

The Royal Cambridge Home provides accommodation, personal care and support for up to 30 people both male and female who served in the armed forces and their dependants. There were 20 mainly older people living at the home on the day we visited, some people had dementia.

The home had a registered manager at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 safe at the home. The provider took appropriate steps to protect people from abuse, neglect or harm. Training records showed staff had received training in safeguarding adults at risk of harm. Staff knew and explained to us what constituted abuse and the action they would take to protect people if they had a concern. We saw that people were able to speak to the registered manager or deputy at any time.

Risks were managed so that people were protected and supported in a non-restrictive way. We saw that risk assessments and support plans were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Where risks were identified, risk management plans were in place. We saw that regular checks of maintenance and service records were conducted. This helped to keep people and the environment safe.

We observed there were sufficient numbers of qualified staff to care for and support people and to meet their needs. We saw that the provider’s staff recruitment process helped to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

People were supported by staff to take their medicines when they needed them and records were kept of medicines taken. Medicines were stored securely and staff received annual medicines training to ensure that medicines administration was managed safely.

Staff were supported through regular supervision and appraisals. Staff had the skills, experiences and a good understanding of how to meet people’s needs through the training they received.

The service had taken appropriate action to ensure the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed. DoLS were in place to protect people where they did not have capacity to make decisions and where it is deemed necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, to protect themselves or others. We saw and heard staff encouraging people to make their own decisions and giving them the time and support to do so.

Detailed records of the care and support people received were kept. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. People had access to healthcare professionals when they needed them.

People were supported by caring staff and we observed people were relaxed with staff who knew and cared for them. Personal care was provided in the privacy of people’s rooms.

People’s needs were assessed and information from these assessments had been used to plan the care and support they received. People had the opportunity to do what they wanted to and to choose the activities or events they would like to attend.

The provider had arrangements in place to respond appropriately to people’s concerns and complaints. People and relatives told us they knew who to make a complaint to.

From our discussions with the registered manager it was clear they had an understanding of their management role and responsibilities and the provider’s legal obligations with regard to CQC.

The provider had policies and procedures in place and these were readily available for staff to refer to when necessary. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Weekly, monthly and annual health and safety and quality assurance audits were conducted by the home. The provider's quality assurance systems were effective in identifying areas where improvements were required so they could take the necessary action to address any concerns.

Relatives spoke highly of the care and support provided to their family members. One relative told us, 'It's a very happy place. It's well run and the care is really good.' Relatives told us that their family members were cared for in a manner that maintained their dignity and that staff respected their family members' preferences about their care. Residents and relatives told us that there were always enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.

We found that staff had access to the training and support they needed. This included an induction for all new starters and refresher training in mandatory areas for all staff. Care staff met regularly with their line managers for supervision and had opportunities to obtain further, relevant qualifications.

All the residents and relatives we spoke with told us that the home was always clean and hygienic. We found evidence that staff had attended training in infection control and that the provider had implemented effective systems to reduce the risk and spread of infection.