• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Cross Keys Homes

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Shrewsbury Avenue, Woodston, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE2 7BZ (01733) 385108

Provided and run by:
Cross Keys Homes Limited

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

All Inspections

12 May 2015

During a routine inspection

Cross Keys Homes is registered to provide personal care to adults and older people for short or long term care. People who use the agency live in the community and also in a housing complex called, ‘Kingfisher Court’. When we visited there were 92 people using the service.

The inspection took place on 12 May 2015 and we gave the provider 48-hours’ notice before we visited. The last inspection was carried out on 30 April 2014 when we found the provider was meeting the regulations we assessed against.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our visit. The former registered manager left their post on 21November 2014. The acting manager was applying to be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about reporting any harm. There were enough staff, with arrangements in place to increase the number of permanent staff and reduce the number of staff supplied from an external agency. Recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff looked after people who used the agency. People were supported to take their prescribed medicines.

Staff were supported and arrangements were in place for staff to attend induction and on-going training. CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. MCA assessments had not been formally carried out although people, who were presumed to lack mental capacity, had their care provided in their best interests. There was no need for DoLS applications to be made as people’s rights were protected.

People were independent in gaining access to health care professionals but were supported by the staff when this help was required. People were supported, when needed, to eat and drink adequate amounts of food and drink that they liked and to support their individual nutritional and hydration needs.

People’s independence, privacy and dignity were respected and they were looked after in a caring way.

People’s needs were responded to but their visits were not consistently carried out at the scheduled time. People looked forward to the staff visiting them as this reduced their sense of social isolation. A complaints procedure was in place and this was followed by staff. People could raise concerns with the staff at any time.

The provider had quality assurance processes and procedures in place to improve, if needed, the quality of people’s care. A staff training and development programme was in place and procedures were in place to review the standard of staff members’ work performance and levels of absence.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

30 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspections findings to answer questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service caring?

People told us that they were satisfied with the standard and quality of their support and care and often described this as being, 'Very good.' They also told us that members of staff had treated them as individuals and had known how they wanted to be looked after.

People also indicated to us that they liked the members of staff and found them to be kind and considerate.

Is the service responsive?

Improvements had been made since our previous inspection visit, which we carried out on 14 November 2013. We saw that people's individual physical, mental and social care and support risks and needs were now assessed and planned for.

We found that people's individual health and wellbeing needs were appropriately met. This included support to maintain and promote their independence, health and to enable them to stay living at home. Family members who were main carers were also provided support to enable them to continue to care for their relative at home.

Is the service safe?

People were very satisfied with how their support and care needs were being met by a consistent team of members of staff. This made people develop confidence in members of staffs' capabilities, which people said had made them feel safe.

There were systems in place to safely support people with the management of their prescribed medications. Medication administration records demonstrated, in the main, that improvements had been made to safely support people with their prescribed medication.

Improvements had been made since our previous inspection of 14 November 2013. This was because improvements had been made regarding the assessment, recording and management of people's individual health and safety risks.

People were provided with safe and appropriate support and care by members of staff who were trained and competent to do their job.

Although there were no people requiring support to restrict their freedom at the time of our inspection visit of 30 April 2014, there was staff training and information available for staff. This was regarding the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service effective?

Members of staff were trained and supported to safely do their job, which they said they enjoyed.

People who used the service were satisfied with how they were actively consulted about their support and care, which they said they had agreed to.

People's health and wellbeing needs were effectively met. People had very positive comments to make about how they were supported to meet their individual needs. This had enabled them to stay living at home.

Is the service well led?

Improvements had been made since out previous inspection, which we carried out on 14 November 2013. This was regarding the auditing and improvement in the standard and quality of people's care records.

People who used the service were provided with a range of opportunities to make suggestions and comments to improve the standard and quality of their support and care. These included taking part in over-the-telephone and face-to-face surveys.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

14 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our inspection visit on 05 September 2013, we found that support plans did not always reflect the person's individual needs to ensure the welfare and safety of the person were met. The provider wrote to us and informed us that they would be compliant with the regulation associated with this standard by 31 October 2013.

During our inspection visit on 14 November 2013, we reviewed five support plans which were stored in the office and noted that the provider had made steps to becoming compliant. However, we found that support plans did not always detail what care and support was planned to ensure care and support was appropriate and safe.

5 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People were involved in making decisions about their care. One relative told us, "We were both involved in developing the support plan".

People's needs were assessed, however support plans did not always reflect the person's individual needs to ensure their welfare and safety was met.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of safeguarding and what they would do if they had a concern. One person told us, "I feel very secure with them".

We found that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff begun work.

The provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess the quality of the service, including receiving feedback from people who used the service.