• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Abbeyfield Girton - Care at Home Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Wellbrook Way, Girton, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB3 0GQ (01223) 277744

Provided and run by:
Abbeyfield Society (The)

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

6 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Abbeyfield Girton - Care at Home Service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own flats. There were 16 people using the service when we visited. This inspection was announced and took place on 6 January 2016. The service did not have a registered manager at the time of this inspection. Although there was a manager in place they were not yet registered. 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. However, a manager had recently been appointed in November 2015 and they were in the process of applying to become registered with the Care Quality Commission.

Staff knew what action to take to ensure that people were protected if they suspected they were at risk of abuse. There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide care to the people using the service.

Recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed to work with people using the service. Risks to people’s health, wellbeing and safety had been assessed and actions had been taken to reduce any identified risks. Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were supported and protected with the safe management of their medication.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider was acting in accordance with the requirements of the MCA including the DoLS. The provider demonstrated how they supported people to make decisions about their care and where they were unable to do so, there were records showing that decisions were being taken in people’s best interests. This also meant that people were not being deprived of their liberty with the protection of the law.

Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported by staff with their nutritional needs, where appropriate, during the care visits they received.

Members of staff were trained to provide effective and safe care which met people’s individual needs and wishes. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. They were supported by the manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge through ongoing support and regular training. The staff were in contact with a range of health care professionals to ensure that care and support to people was well coordinated and appropriate.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their care and support was provided in a caring and patient way.

Care and support was provided to people in their own flats situated in a purpose built housing complex. People received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and their care plans were amended when required. The service was flexible and responded very positively to people’s requests. People who used the service felt able to make requests and express their opinions and views. Proactive measures were in place to prevent people from becoming socially isolated. A complaints procedure was in place and complaints had been responded to, to the satisfaction of the complainant. People felt able to raise concerns with the staff at any time.

The provider had effective quality assurance processes and procedures in place to monitor the quality and safety of people’s care. People and their relatives were able to make suggestions in relation to the support and care provided.

20 August 2014

During a routine inspection

An adult social care inspector carried out this this inspection on 20 August 2014. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, four relatives, the service manager, and two members of care staff and a healthcare professional who had contact with the agency. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included: five care plans, daily records, medication records and procedures, staff recruitment records and quality assurance monitoring records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service caring?

The agency provided care and support for people living in their own flats within an independent living housing complex. People told us that they received consistent and respectful support from care staff and felt able to make choices and changes to their care when required. Relatives that we spoke with were positive about the care and support provided to their family member. Care staff told us that they were well supported and supervised so that they could provide safe care and support to people. Meetings were in place so that people using the agency and their relatives were able to discuss any care and support issues.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's personal care and support needs were assessed and met. This also included people's individual choices and preferences as to how they wanted their care to be provided. People we spoke with told us that they had been able to make changes to their support and had been involved in reviews of their care. Relatives that we spoke with also confirmed that they had been involved in reviews. We saw that changes to documentation were made to ensure that care and support being provided was up to date and met people's needs.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people's individual needs were carried out and measures were in place to minimise any identified hazards. Care staff understood their roles and responsibilities in making sure that people were protected from the risk of abuse. We saw that the provider was taking appropriate action to ensure that all care workers had received safeguarding training to ensure peoples' safety. There were effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure that only appropriate staff were employed to provide care and support to people.

Is the service effective?

We found that care workers were knowledgeable about people's individual care and support needs. People who used the service that we spoke with, and their relatives, confirmed that care staff provided consistent care and support and were keen to address any concerns or issues. The service manager confirmed that regular reviews of care and support were in place to meet people's assessed needs.

Is the service well led?

Staff that we spoke with told us that they felt well supported by the management team so that they could safely provide care and support. People and their relatives that we spoke with told us that they felt they were listened to and that support was consistently and safely provided. Quality assurance systems were in place to regularly audit the care and services provided. Surveys were carried out to gather opinions from people who used the service. The manager and care staff were in daily contact with people and their relatives to respond to their concerns or queries

3 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People that we spoke with were positive and complimentary about the care and support they received and commented that, 'The carers are kind and I look forward to seeing them'. People told us that they felt involved in the planning of their care and support and that their views and concerns were listened to and properly dealt with. Care and support was well coordinated and care planning documentation was detailed and showed peoples' preferences and details of how care should be delivered.

There were effective safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from harm. Staff had received training and they were clear about their responsibility in reporting any incidents or allegations of abuse.

There were induction programmes in place and mandatory training had taken place to ensure that staff were competent to deliver care. Supervision was regularly provided to staff to monitor their work performance and development needs.

Quality assurance procedures were in place to monitor the running of the agency and people using the service were able to give their views and raise any concerns with the management team.