Cambridge Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider ensured people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and regularly reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with their involvement.
People’s care plans were reviewed as required. The registered manager told us relatives were invited to review their family member’s care at least twice a year, although they could contribute at any time. Surveys were used to gather feedback from people and relatives.
Feedback from relatives indicated they felt involved in their family member’s care and kept up to date. One relative told us, “The staff keep us informed of any issues and will ring us.”
Although some risk assessments were not always updated in a timely manner, care plans were detailed and included personalised guidance for staff on how to meet people’s individual needs.
 

Clinical assessment tools were utilised including food charts and weight loss was appropriately recorded. People who required a falls risk assessment had one in place with documented actions to mitigate risk. This supported effective monitoring of people’s needs and enabled timely review and intervention where required. Staff knew people’s dietary needs and ensured meals served were the correct modification.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.
Communication with external health and social care partners was consistently recorded, and there was documented evidence of weekly involvement from health professionals, further supporting coordinated and informed care.
Internal communication was effective due to the provider identifying ways to ensure all staff could provide feedback, this was ensuring meetings were held before hand overs to ensure night staff and day staff could be present.
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
Staff shared information appropriately with other health professionals and worked together to anticipate risks, promote wellbeing and deliver consistent care that met people’s holistic needs. One professional shared with us, “She [registered manager] attends weekly check-ins with our care coordinator and the care home matron, these meetings allow her to discuss residents and any concerns that she may have. In addition, she attends our bimonthly care home events with staff.”
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The provider employed activity co-ordinators who promoted wellbeing and independence. Care plan audits were undertaken, and outcomes were reviewed to ensure they were being met. One relative we spoke with shared, “[Person] couldn’t walk at home, and they certainly couldn’t get to the toilet, but with their frame they can walk from their chair now to the toilet.” Evidencing how the support provided by the provider has improved people’s outcomes.

The application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was not always fully demonstrated. We did not consistently see evidence that all practicable steps had been taken to support people to make their own decisions. For example, one assessment recorded a person as lacking capacity; however, it did not clearly evidence consideration of whether the person could understand, retain, or weigh relevant information, with some sections recorded as ‘not applicable’.

Records relating to best interest decision-making would benefit from further development to ensure they clearly demonstrate consideration of least restrictive options. In addition, documentation suggested decisions were sometimes made within a single meeting, with limited evidence of wider consultation.

Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were submitted when required, and any conditions were recorded in care plans. However, we identified occasions where restrictions, including the use of sensor mats, were in place without clearly documented MCA assessments or best interest decisions.

Whilst we identified some concerns in relation to the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a professional shared with CQC, “they [service] strive to implement the principles of the MCA, for example the least restrictive principle (resisting the use of medication to manage behaviour, promoting community access, and supporting people’s interests, such as arranging befriending opportunities).”
The registered manager was responsive to the concerns identified and arranged additional training in relation to mental capacity assessments and best interest decision-making. They also confirmed that relevant documentation would be reviewed.
Staff demonstrated an awareness of the importance of gaining consent before providing support. One staff member said, “[Staff] always ask for consent first, and talk them through things.”