Archived: Papworth Trust - Cambridgeshire

Updated 9 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 22 and 27 June 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office for our inspection visit. This inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before this inspection we reviewed information available to us about the service, such as the notifications they sent us. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law.

We spoke with six people using the service and one person’s relative. We also spoke with the registered manager, five staff members and a visiting district nurse.

We looked at the care records for five people, and at the medicine management process. We also looked at three staff records, records maintained by the service about staff training and monitoring the safety and quality of the service.

Updated 9 August 2017

This inspection took place on 22 and 27 June 2016 and was announced. Papworth Trust - Cambridgeshire is a domiciliary care agency providing a personal care to people living in their own homes. On the day of our visit 10 people were using the service.

The agency has 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.

Staff were aware of safeguarding people from the risk of harm and they knew how to report concerns to the relevant agencies. They assessed individual risks to people and took action to reduce or remove them.

People felt safe receiving care and staff supported them in a way that they preferred. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks for new staff members had been made before they started work to make sure they were safe to work with people using the agency.

People received their medicines when they needed them, and staff members who administered medicines had been trained to do this safely. Staff members received other training, which provided them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff received adequate support from the registered manager and senior staff, which they found helpful.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and to report on what we find. The agency was meeting the requirements of the MCA. Staff had the knowledge and skills to apply the principles of the MCA if this was needed.

Staff supported people so that they received enough food and drink to meet their needs. Information was available for staff members about health professionals involved in people’s care and staff worked with them to make sure people received the care they needed.

Staff were caring, kind, respectful and courteous. Staff members knew people well, what they liked and how they wanted to be treated. They responded to people’s needs well and support was always available. Care plans contained enough information to support individual people with their needs. People were happy using the agency and staff supported them to be as independent as possible.

A complaints procedure was available and people knew how to and who to go to, to make a complaint. The registered manager was supportive and approachable, and people or other staff members could speak with them at any time.

The registered manager was a visible presence for people who used the agency and lead a team of staff who got on well and liked working for the agency. The quality of the service and risks to people were visually monitored, although records of these findings had not been kept, which meant there was no audit trail of how this had been determined.