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

Reports


Inspection carried out on 19 September 2016

During a routine inspection

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.

Pe

Inspection carried out on 13,14 and 19 May 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 13, 14 and 19 May and was unannounced. This was the first inspection on this location which was registered last year.

The service is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. There is 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 agency is well run with clear lines of accountability and responsibility.

Staff knew in advance who they were visiting and what their needs were. They had enough time between visits to ensure they could deliver the care and support people required. Their work was organised in such a way that they could easily travel from person to person with minimal travel time. There were adequate arrangements to cover staff sickness and holidays to ensure scheduled visits were not missed.

Staff received training to enable them to administer medicines to people when this was required. Audits were carried out to ensure people had the medicines they needed and they were being administered safely to people. Checks on staff helped to identify poor practice so this could be addressed.

Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and steps taken to reduce risk. Where events had taken place the agency had learnt from these and taken appropriate steps.

Staff had enough knowledge of how to keep people safe and knew how to report any concerns about people’s welfare. Staff received training on how to report concerns and recognise abuse. The manager was proactive in reporting concerns to the Local Authority.

There was a robust staff recruitment process which helped to ensure only suitable staff were employed. Staff were well supported through induction, training, one to one and group support.

The manager understood legislation relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and supported staff to help them understand their responsibilities when supporting people. Care records helped determine what people could do for themselves and what they needed support with. This helped staff provide support according to people’s wishes and people had consented to their care.

People were supported with their assessed needs and when required staff assisted people to ensure they ate and drank enough for their needs. Staff monitored people’s health care needs and records showed that when there was a change in need staff contacted health care professionals for advice.

The staff were familiar with people’s needs and were enthusiastic and passionate about their work. Some staff had a particular interest in dementia care and engaged positively with people they supported and with people’s families and circles of support.

People’s needs were assessed and a plan of care was in place to help staff know how best to support the person. This was kept under review to ensure any change in need could be quickly addressed.

The manager had an established team who were all aware of their role and all staff helped provide care and support to people and were familiar with their needs. All staff spoken with felt well supported and confident in the manager’s abilities and knowledge of the service.

The agency had good links with the community and worked hard to enable people to keep existing skills and receive enough support for their needs.

The agency were striving for excellence and had robust systems in place to respond to or identify where the service has fallen short of an expected standard. This was addressed to ensure the service was continuously improved.

This seems to reflect a lot about staff and not so much about people’s experiences.

Inspection carried out on 17 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the office of the provider and spoke with five staff, visited eight people who used the service and spoke with seven people on the telephone to ask about the service they received. The information was good and people said on the whole the service could be relied upon and calls were usually provided on time. The exception to this was when people did not have their regular carer. Most people said they had at least one carer that came the majority of the time, but on their days off and annual leave they would see other people. People understood why care calls sometimes ran late but some people said they wished the office would let them know.

We saw during our visits that people had care plans in place and these were reviewed usually twice a year depending on how often people’s needs changed. People told us their needs were reviewed and the service was flexible enough to meet their changing needs. They said they had completed a questionnaire giving feedback about the service they received.

We found the service to be well managed and well led. There were good systems in place to recruit only suitable staff and support them through the companies, induction and training programme. Staff received appropriate professional development and support for their role. We found the manager to be open and aware of the needs of the people who the service were and the staff delivering the care.

Care plans were informative and person centred and showed that people were given care appropriate for their needs in a way of their choosing and in a way that took into account known risks.