Archived: Cambridge Care Company

Updated 11 April 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 was planned to check 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.’

The inspection took place on the 19, 20, 30 September and the 3 October 2016. The visits to people using the service were arranged by the agency and the provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection taking place. This is in line with our methodology for domiciliary services.

The inspection was carried out by an inspector. We also used an expert by experience to telephone people who used the service. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Our expert had experience of older people.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we already held about the service including previous inspection reports and notifications which are important events the service is required to tell us about. We also had information from the provider information return which tells us important information about the service.

As part of this inspection we visited five people, spoke with seven staff, looked at five care plans spoke with thirteen people on the telephone and five relatives. This location cares for around 100 people.

Updated 11 April 2017

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.

People told us they felt safe with the care provided to them and we found a strong emphasis on key principles of care such as compassion, respect and dignity. People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was always respected.

Staff responded to people’s individual needs and changes in support. There were mechanisms in place to review people’s needs and to monitor staff’s practice to ensure they were meeting people’s needs.

People using the service were invited to make comment about the service and the provider was responsive to feedback received by people. However not everyone felt their experiences had improved after they feedback about late running calls.

It was evidence that the provider worked hard to improve the overall quality of people’s lives and supported and respected people’s right to live at they chose. They were committed to continuous improvement and had strong principles and values which drove the organisation forward. Staff meet were passionate about what they did and the difference the made to people’s lives.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service. The provider was keen to ensure staff had the right skills and demonstrate best practice.