• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Abbeyfield Care at Home (East)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Brownsfield House, 25 Sherbourne Close, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB4 1RT (01223) 223901

Provided and run by:
Abbeyfield Society (The)

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

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 11 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was the first inspection of this service since the location moved on 6 March 2017. Our inspection activity started on 28 June 2018 and ended on 4 July 2018. It included two visits to the provider's office and phone calls to people who use the service on 29 June 2018. The first visit to the office took place on 28 June 2018 and our second office visit was on 4 July 2018. Both these visits were carried out by one inspector. The inspection visits were announced. We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the first visit to the office because we needed to be sure that staff would be available.

Prior to the inspection visit we looked at information we held about the service and used this

information as part of our inspection planning. The information included notifications. Notifications are information on important events that happen in the service that the provider is required by law to notify us about. In January 2018 the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to assist with planning the inspection.

We spoke with eight people who were receiving a service including two people who we spoke with over the telephone. We spoke with two care co-ordinators, four care workers, and the registered manager.

We looked at two people's care records as well as other records relating to the management of the service. These included medicine administration charts, audit records, the service development plan and the complaints folder.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 11 September 2018

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in two specialist ‘extra care’ housing sites and people living in their own homes in the community. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Not everyone using Abbeyfield Cambridge Care at Home Service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with the regulated activity ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people do receive personal care we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This is the first inspection of this service since it moved location in March 2017. The inspection was announced.

There was 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.

People felt safe and were protected as far as possible by staff who were competent to recognise and report any avoidable harm or abuse. Potential risks to people had been assessed and measures put in place to minimise the risks.

There were enough staff to make sure that people were safe and their needs met in a timely manner. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service. Staff followed the correct procedures to prevent the spread of infection and understood their responsibility to report any accidents and incidents.

People were supported to take their medicines by staff who were trained and had been assessed to be competent to administer medicines.

Assessments of people’s needs were carried out to ensure that the service could meet those needs in the way the person preferred. Technology such as alarm call system was used via the use of pendants for all people using the service to enhance the care being provided.

Staff received induction, training and support including supervision and appraisals to enable them to do their job well.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People and their relatives made positive comments about the staff. Staff treated people kindly and showed they knew each person well. People were involved in planning their care and support. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported people to remain as independent as possible.

Care plans gave staff detailed guidance relating to the care and support each person needed so that people received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.

A complaints process was in place and a complaint received had been dealt with in a timely manner. The provider had a process in place to meet people’s end-of-life care needs when this was required.

Staff felt supported by the care co-ordinators and the registered manager. Staff were clear about their role to provide people with a high-quality service, thus upholding the values of the service. Staff enjoyed working for this service.

A quality assurance system was in place, including a number of ways in which people, their relatives and staff were enabled to give their views about the service and how it could be improved. Audits and monitoring checks on various aspects of the service, including spot-checks on the way staff worked with people, were carried out.

The registered manager was aware of the various matters that the service was required by law to notify CQC about. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure that joined-up care was provided to people.