You are here

Archived: Cambridge Care Company Good

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

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 April 2017

The inspection took place over several dates. On the 19 and 20 September we telephoned people who used the service. On the 30 September we visited people using the service and on the 3 October 2016 we visited the office.

Cambridge Care LTD is owned by a sole provider and 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. This was awarded in June 2015 and began in September 2015. They scored the highest points of all the care providers and were awarded the 4 year contract. 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.

At the time of our inspection 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.

The commitment and energy from the registered provider/manager and her staff were clear to see and they were developing the service to be the best they could be and had been nominated for a number of awards. We felt the service had the potential to be rated as outstanding in terms of its management and leadership. However we received quite mixed feedback from people using the service and their relatives which has been reflected in the overall rating of the service. People were generally happy with their care and told us that care staff helped them stay in their own homes and promoted their independence and their dignity.

Some people told us the timing of their calls were not of their choosing and not everyone had continuity of care which meant they were not sure which carer would be coming to assist them. Some reported poor communication from the service and changes not being implemented when they had raised concerns about the times of their calls. Others told us their care plans were not always regularly reviewed.

The provider/manager told us about the difficulties they had recruiting staff in today’s market place but had taken every necessary step to recruit and retain staff. The times of the calls varied and were not always to people’s liking but the service said they tried to provide the support close to the desired time and had not missed any calls so did not feel people’s care was compromised.

The Provider was fully aware of their responsibilities to protect people as far as reasonably possible from abuse or actual harm. There were systems in place to ensure that risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were identified and addressed. All staff spoken with were knowledgeable about reporting any concerns they might have to ensure the safety and well-being of people in their care.

There were systems in place to ensure people requiring support to take their medicines correctly received it by staff who were appropriately trained.

Staff had the right skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and staff were supported in their roles. Some of the newer staff were said to lack experience but we found the induction process robust.

People had their health care needs met by other care professionals but care staff working for this service were aware of people’s needs and any medical conditions they might have and referred them on as and when it was appropriate to do so.

There were systems in place to support people who lacked capacity with decision making to ensure their rights were upheld. Staff promoted people’s choice and independence.


Inspection areas



Updated 11 April 2017

The service was safe

People received the support they required but this was not always provided in a timely way.

Risks to people were monitored and reduced whenever possible.

Staff understood the principles of safeguarding and how to protect people from potential harm and actual abuse.

There were safe systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as intended.

There were robust recruitment processes in place to ensure only suitable staff were employed.



Updated 11 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training and support for their role and were sufficiently competent. The provider supported staff to develop and acquire additional skills and qualifications.

People’s choices were promoted and the service worked lawfully in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s health care needs were known by staff and staff referred people to other agencies as appropriate.

People received the support where required around their dietary needs.



Updated 11 April 2017

The service was caring.

People received care and support by caring staff who promoted their independence as far as possible.

Staff respected people’s dignity and this was established through people’s plan of care.

People were consulted about their care and involved in their assessment, care plan and review of the overall service.



Updated 11 April 2017

The service is responsive.

Staff provided care and support according to people’s needs.

Care plans were informative and staff said they helped them when providing support to people.

The provider ensured people’s needs were met as holistically as possible to promote people’s well-being.

There were systems in place to ensure people could raise comments/concerns about their care when they needed to so this could be addressed. However some people told us that their concerns were not always satisfactorily addressed.



Updated 11 April 2017

The service was well led

There were systems in place to constantly measure and improve the service as a result of feedback.

The service benefitted from a strong and visionary leader who was always looking for innovative practices and resources to improve outcomes for people.

Staff were dedicated, motivated and encouraged to be the best they could be.

There was good community engagement and pulling together resources for the benefit of people using the service.