Archived: Fambridge Care Limited

Updated 21 December 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Fambridge Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service three working days’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to write to people who used the service to inform them about the inspection and that someone may be calling them to seek their views.

Inspection activity started on 6 November and ended on 13 November 2019. We visited the office location on 12 November 2019.

What we did before the inspection

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we had about the service. This included feedback from the local authority and statutory notifications which included information the provider is required to send us by law. The provider was not asked to send us a Provider Information Return (PIR) on this occasion. The PIR gives us information about what the service does well and any planned improvements. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

During the inspection, we spoke with eight people who used the service and ten family members. At the office we spoke with eight members of staff including the registered manager, the managing director, the service manager, human resources manager and four care staff. We looked at seven people’s care records including their care arrangements, medicine routine and daily notes. We examined six staff members recruitment records, including supervision records and training files. We viewed documents relating to the management of the service, complaints and compliments, satisfaction surveys and quality audits.

After the inspection –

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. This included lessons learnt and supervision provided. We had feedback from four professionals who had contact with the service and emailed feedback from three staff members.

Updated 21 December 2019

About the service

Fambridge Care is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to younger and older people. A reablement service is provided for up to six weeks duration as well as long term care and support. At the time of the inspection, 69 people were using the service.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe using the service. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and monitored. Safeguarding practices were in place and fully investigated. People’s medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed. Staff used equipment for the prevention and control of infection. Safe recruitment processes were in place and there were enough staff to care for people. Lessons had been learnt when things had gone wrong and processes changed to prevent them happening again.

People had their needs assessed and support was provided to meet them. Staff had induction and training; support and supervision, and their competency was checked. Technology was used to deliver effective care however, improvements were needed to the rota arrangements.

We have made a recommendation about the provider reviewing its process in relation to timings of calls and consistency of staff.

People were supported with their meals and drinks and had access to healthcare services. Staff involved professionals in people’s care to enable them to keep well. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were kind, caring and considerate. People were supported to express their views and make decisions about their care. People’s dignity and privacy was respected, and their independence promoted. People were involved in their care arrangements and people received personalised care. A complaints process was in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

The service did not have an adequate system in place for providing end of life care.

We have made a recommendation about the provider putting in place a system to assess people's wishes in relation to end of life care and provide training for staff.

The service was well led and managed. Staff felt valued and well supported by the management team. There were clear lines of accountability and staff clear about their roles and responsibilities. A quality assurance process was in place which provided oversight but audits were not as robust as they should be. People and staff were involved, asked for their views and these were listened to. The service worked with other organisations to support and promote joined up care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 1 March 2019 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to a range of safeguarding concerns received since the registration of the service. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine any risks to people’s safety. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm as these concerns had been fully investigated and lessons learn as a result.