You are here

Cambridge Care Company - Haverhill Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out checks at Cambridge Care Company - Haverhill. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 19 June 2018

The inspection took place over several dates. On the 7 March 2017 we visited the office. On the 8 and 9 March 2017 we visited people in their own homes and on 19, 20 & 28 April 2017 we telephoned people who used the service to get their feedback about their experience of the service.

Cambridge Care Company is located in Haverhill and provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes and supported living accommodation. There were 92 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

Cambridge Care Company Limited has three separately registered locations with main offices in Newmarket, Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill, all in Suffolk. They provide support across the three locations to just over three hundred people. Since the last inspection in December 2013 the agency were awarded the Support to Live at Home contract by Suffolk County Council. They have been working closely with the Council to implement the contract. The contract supports a move away from task focused care to more holistic care which can be measured in terms of outcomes for people using the service.

The service had a newly appointed manager in post who was in the process of applying to become registered with the CQC as the registered manager of the Haverhill location.

People told us they were generally happy with the service, although the times of the calls varied and did not always reflect people’s preferred choices for when their care was provided. Some people reported poor communication from the office with regard to concerns about the times of their calls.

The provider recognised that during recent months the service was not always responsive due to several care staff leaving the service. We were told that existing staff had been required to work additional hours to cover these vacancies. This meant that people did not always receive consistent care from people that they knew. However the service had recruited several new care staff in recent months and continues to advertise for additional care staff, in order to reach their full complement of staff.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people`s needs and the risks involved in people`s daily living. Although staff were trained in safe administration of medicines they were not always following best practice guidance when administering or recording people`s medicines. We also found that medicines were not managed effectively or safely and the monitoring system in place had failed to resolve a serious medicine error discovered during this inspection.

People were asked to provide consent before staff supported them and this had been recorded in their care plans. Staff had some understanding of MCA requirements and the provider told us that MCA/DOLs training was being arranged for all staff.

Staff felt that the support from the management team had not always been consistent during recent months due to some internal changes within the management structure of the service. However they told us things had slightly improved recently and that staffing was better; however last minute sickness or absence still caused stress and put pressure on them to cover for these instances.

There were some systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and additional systems were being developed to help ensure the support provided was consistent. However the current system for monitoring call times was not efficient or effective in alerting or identifying calls that were late or missed. The provider told us that they were in the process of purchasing and implementing an electronic monitoring system to help improve the recording of calls times and alerting office staff about late or missed visits.

People told us they felt safe and trusted the staff who offered them care and support. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and how to report their concerns. Staff knew people well and treated them with dignity and respect.

People told us that they were supported to make their own decisions and choices which staff respected. They told us they had discussions with their key worker about their care plans and their needs. The provider organised meetings with people to gather their views on what they liked and disliked about the service and how to improve.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was not always safe.

Staff had not always followed best practice guidelines when administering people`s medicines.

People told us they were not always informed of which staff would support them and at what time.

Risks involved in people`s daily living were recognised and supported by staff.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff knew how to recognise and respond to concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received training in order to carry out their role

People were supported to make their own decisions and staff respected their choices and asked for their consent before assisting them.

People were supported to eat healthy foods.

People were supported to attend appointments with health care professionals as needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were caring and they were treated with dignity and respect.

People were involved in planning their support.

Confidentiality was promoted.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People did not always received care and support in a personalised way.

Care plans were reflective of people`s current needs and included people`s preferences, likes and dislikes.

People we spoke with told us they were mostly independent in regards to their hobbies and interests, and if needed staff supported them to attend events.

People were knowledgeable about how to raise complaints if they needed to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

Visit times, late and missed calls were not managed effectively to ensure that people received the care and support at the required times.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the service but these systems had failed to identify shortfalls in the service with regard to the management of medicines. This is an area that required improvement in order to manage the quality and safety of the service effectively.

People, their relatives and staff were positive about the overall management of the service and felt the registered manager worked in an open and transparent way.