You are here

Archived: Cambridge Care Company Also known as Haverill

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

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 December 2013
Date of Publication: 9 January 2014
Inspection Report published 09 January 2014 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive and make sure risks to their health and safetly are effectively managed.

Reasons for our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. Annual surveys were circulated to people using the service and relatives asking them for feedback on the services performance. This enabled the provider to see what they were doing well and where they needed to improve. The provider might like to note that surveys were not circulated to professionals which might be a good source of feedback. The provider might also wish to note that results from the survey were not collated and fed-back to stakeholders and people using this service. This information would help people see how well the agency were performing and what actions they were taking to improve the service.

The provider stated that people’s needs and feedback about the service provided was monitored continuously throughout the year, with regular, three monthly telephone reviews and a home visit twice a year. Staff told us they were required to complete daily notes recording the time they arrived and left and what tasks they completed. These would be transferred to the office and monitored, as were medication records. Staff said there was a need to know form which would be completed if there were any concerns or changes of a person’s need. This would be completed and immediately taken to the office so any changes to the support and support plan could be actioned. This meant the service was identifying and acting on changes to people’s needs. Staff said they also completed body maps for any marks, injury or red skin observed which would enable staff to monitor people’s well- being.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. We looked at five care plans in people’s homes and two in the office and saw that records were comprehensive. Risk assessments had been completed both for the environment the care which took place and for activities of daily living and areas where the person was to be supported, such as medication. These were reviewed every six months or sooner if there was a change in circumstances. Risk assessments described the control measures in place to reduce the risk and keep people safe. There were detailed manual handling plans in place to ensure people were appropriately supported throughout any transfer and we saw correct equipment was in place and staff had been trained to use it. Staff carried out visual checks on equipment and tested people’s pendant alarms where they used them to make sure they were working effectively. This meant that equipment was in place and safe to use.

We saw on the computer system that calls were planned throughout the day and where a call was time critical this was indicated on the system. The manager told us they had not had any missed calls and generally the service worked well because carers had regular visits to make and any changes would be communicated to carers in a timely way. The service had additional staff on duty who could pick up calls where necessary to cover staff sickness or if carers were running late. This meant the service was well planned.

The provider had a record of complaints, showing only one which had been satisfactorily resolved and the agency kept a record of any safeguarding concerns reported to the local authority. This might be where a person had been identified at risk or harm and required support to keep them safe.

There were systems in place to support workers and this was recorded on the computer. The manager could see at a glance when staff required refresher training and other key data which enabled the manager to ensure staffs knowledge and support was kept up to date.