Camden Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People using the service and their relatives understood how to raise concerns or make a complaint and were familiar with the complaint’s procedure. One relative said, “I would speak to the manager if I had any issues. I am confident they would sort out any issues.”

The provider had effective systems in place to manage complaints and safety concerns. The registered manager closely monitored all incidents to identify patterns and take appropriate action to minimise risks.

Staff were encouraged to record and report incidents through clear, established procedures. An open and transparent culture was promoted by the registered manager through an open‑door approach and regular team meetings, where accidents, incidents, and areas for improvement were consistently reviewed and discussed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff adhered to established procedures to ensure effective handovers when people were admitted to hospital. Key information about each person’s needs was shared with paramedics and hospital teams to promote continuity and safe care.

The team collaborated with healthcare professionals, including GPs and specialist practitioners, to monitor peoples’ health and respond promptly to any changes in their needs.

For those with diagnosed health conditions, risk assessments provided clear guidance for safe support. The provider remained responsive to changing needs and made timely referrals to healthcare professionals where necessary.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff received safeguarding training, were familiar with local procedures, and knew how to identify and report concerns. People felt safe in the care they received. Staff consistently promoted peoples’ rights and safety while supporting their overall quality of life.

Any potential safeguarding incidents were carefully investigated and appropriately reported to the local authority and the Care Quality Commission, helping to uphold people’s safety and wellbeing.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were followed to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

We observed staff working safely and supporting people to use equipment appropriately and with care. Staff confirmed they had received training to help people move safely using equipment, and records we reviewed supported this.

Staff were kept informed about risks and any changes in people’s support needs through regular handovers and updated care plans. Risks related to people’s health conditions were discussed with them and their relatives.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure that facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

We identified toiletries classified as hazardous substances in one of the communal bathrooms, which had been left there by staff. A hazardous substance in a care home includes any item officially recognised as very toxic, toxic, harmful, corrosive, or irritant. Given that most people at Camden Care Home had some level of cognitive impairment, this practice posed a risk to those using the service. We informed the registered manager, who instructed the staff on duty to remove the items, and on follow-up, we saw this had been done.

Regular health and safety audits showed that areas for refurbishment or repair were recorded. The refurbishment of the home was ongoing at the time of our assessment. Some relatives told us that they felt the refurbishment was taking too long and said this impacted their loved ones, as their current environment had been reduced, due to some of the building being closed off for refurbishment.

There had been a few occasions when the date for opening the newly refurbished part of the home, known as phase 1, had been set back. Due to insufficient fire safety measures being in place this had been put on hold again until the required works were completed. The registered manager advised us that she was organising a meeting for people’s families to discuss the next steps.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staffing levels were arranged to meet peoples’ needs effectively. People’s relatives told us there were enough staff available and that support was provided when needed.

Staff appeared confident in their roles and had a clear understanding of their responsibilities. They also confirmed that they received ongoing training and regular supervision, which they found helpful and supportive.

Recruitment processes demonstrated that all necessary pre-employment checks were completed, ensuring that appropriate staff were employed.

The provider assessed, managed, and mitigated infection risks, taking action to prevent and control potential spread and reporting concerns to relevant agencies when necessary. Staff adhered to infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures in line with current guidance.

During the inspection, we observed that staff were completing cleaning tasks and had undertaken training in infection prevention and control and food safety. Staff also had access to appropriate personal protective equipment .

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicines as prescribed, including pain relief administered in accordance with healthcare professionals’ guidance. Staff were trained and assessed as competent to administer medicines safely and understood the procedures for reporting and managing medication errors.

Medicines were stored securely, with regular checks to ensure storage temperatures remained safe. Medicines subject to additional controls were handled in line with relevant regulations. Stock levels were accurate based on sample checks completed during the inspection.

Medication administration records were completed correctly and demonstrated that people received their medicines at the appropriate times. Regular audits were carried out to ensure ongoing oversight of medicines management.