The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Cambridge House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

141 Gordon Avenue, Camberley, Surrey, GU15 2NR (01276) 691035

Provided and run by:
Mr Naushad Heeroo & Mrs Christine Anne Heeroo

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

8 May 2018

During a routine inspection

At our last inspection in February 2017 the overall rating for this service was Requires Improvement. We rated Responsive and Well- Led as Requires Improvement because the activities provided were not always person centred and did not always reflect people’s hobbies and interests. We also made recommendations that the provider reviewed their record keeping with regard to monitoring the quality of the service provided and the recording of staff supervision records. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Responsive and Well Led to at least good.

At this inspection on the 8 May 2018 we found the provider had followed their plan with regard to the breach of regulations in person centred care and had followed our recommendations with regard to monitoring and record keeping. People could choose the activities they liked to do, systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service, audits of the premises helped ensure the premises and people were kept safe and staff supervision records were more comprehensive.

We have changed the rating for Responsive and Well- Led to Good and the overall rating to Good.

Cambridge House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. There were 13 older people, some of whom had Dementia, using the service at the time of our inspection.

The bedrooms were based on two floors and each floor had shared bathroom facilities. Some bedrooms had en-suite facilities consisting of a toilet and basin. There is a large lounge and dining room and access to a garden. The home is close to local amenities including shops and with good transport links.

The home had a registered manager who was also the provider in place. 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

People were safe at the home. Staff could explain to us how to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. People had suitable risk assessments in place. The provider managed risks associated with the premises and equipment well. There were enough staff at the home to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices remained safe. Medicines continued to be administered safely. The checks we made confirmed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by staff qualified to administer medicines.

People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support. Staff had the skills, experience and a good understanding of how to meet people’s needs. We saw that staff encouraged people to make their own decisions and gave them the encouragement, time and support to do so. Staff were providing support in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals.

The staff were caring. The atmosphere in the home was calm and friendly. Staff took their time and gave people encouragement whilst supporting them. Throughout the inspection we saw that people had the privacy they needed and were treated with dignity and respect by staff.

People’s needs were assessed before they stayed at the home and support was planned and delivered in response to their needs. The provider had arrangements in place to respond appropriately to people’s concerns and complaints.

We observed during our visit that management were approachable and responsive to staff and people’s needs.

14 February 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 14 February 2017 and was unannounced.

Cambridge House is a privately owned and managed care home registered to provide care and support without nursing for 16 elderly people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our visit there were 14 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At our last inspection on 2 November 2015 we made a recommendation that guidance should be implemented to ensure staff were aware of the support people required should they need to evacuate the building in an emergency. At this inspection we found that personal emergency evacuation plans had been implemented and staff were aware of the support people required. The provider had a contingency plan in place to ensure that people would continue to receive their care in the event the building could not be used.

Activities provided were not always person centred and did not always reflect people’s hobbies and interests. There was little opportunity for people who were unable to go out without support to access the local community. Not all staff demonstrated skills in involving people living with dementia in activities. Other people said they enjoyed the activities on offer.

The provider conducted a number of audits to ensure that processes within the service were followed by staff and that care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. We have made a recommendation that the registered manager assesses all aspects of the service, including the quality of records regarding staff supervision and the activities taking place and how these are recorded in care plans.

Staff received supervision although records did not reflect the discussions which had taken place. We have made a recommendation regarding this. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager. Staff completed regular training to support them in their role and new staff were inducted into the service.

Robust recruitment processes were completed prior to new staff starting work at the service to ensure that only suitable staff were employed. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs, call bells were answered promptly and people did not have to wait for their care.

People were protected from potential harm as staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and measures implemented to keep people safe. Accidents and incidents were monitored by the registered manager and where required changes to the support people received were made to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

Medicines procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines in line with prescribed guidelines. People were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to a range of healthcare professionals. People’s weight was monitored and any significant changes were addressed to ensure any underlying health concerns were identified. People’s dietary needs were known to staff and people had a choice of food and drinks. People told us they enjoyed the food provided.

People’s legal rights were protected as staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were observed to request people’s consent prior to supporting them with their care needs.

People and their relatives told us that staff were caring and treated them with respect. We observed positive interactions between people and staff. There were no restrictions on the times relatives could visit the service and the relatives we spoke with told us they were made to feel welcome. People’s dignity was maintained and where people chose to spend time in their rooms this was respected.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into to the service to ensure they could be met. People’s care plans contained detailed guidance for staff on how people preferred their care to be provided. Regular reviews were held with people and their relatives to ensure that the information provided to staff was up to date.

There was a complaints procedure in place which was prominently displayed. People and their relatives told us they would feel comfortable in raising any concerns with staff or the registered manager. People, relatives and staff told us the registered manager was approachable and listened to their views and opinions. Feedback on the service provided was gained through satisfaction questionnaires. We reviewed the comments received from the last questionnaire and found they all rated the service as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.

During the inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

02 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Cambridge House is a privately owned and managed care home registered to provide care and support without nursing for 16 elderly people, some of whom were living with the experience of dementia. At the time of our visit 14 people lived here.

The inspection took place on 02 November 2015 and was unannounced.  At our previous inspection in October 2013 we had not identified any concerns.

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.

There was positive feedback about the home and caring nature of staff from people and their relatives.  A person said, “I am looked after well here.” Another said, “It’s a good place here.” A relative said, “I cannot praise the home enough; they really go that extra mile to support my family member.” Health care professionals gave feedback such as, “Friendly and polite staff.” “Kind and caring” and “Excellent care.”

People were not always safe at Cambridge House. Not all risks to people had been identified and controls put into place to manage them. For example the risk of entrapment from bed rails had not been assessed, and staff did not always have clear guidelines for supporting people who may have behaviour that challenged themselves or others. The support people needed in the event of an evacuation had also not been recorded, which could slow down the effectiveness of getting people out of the building in an emergency.

The staff were generally kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff took time to talk to people and knew them as individuals. One improvement was noted where staff could interact more positively when supporting a person to eat. Some good interactions were seen, such as staff holding people’s hands when sitting and talking with them.

Where people did not have the capacity to understand or consent to a decision, the provider had not always followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Some assessments contained conflicting information, about whether the person had capacity or not. People told us that staff did ask their permission before they provided care.

Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected. Staffs understanding of their roles and responsibilities within the DoLS was effective.

People received their medicines when they needed them. Staff managed the medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines. Some minor areas for improvement were noted, such as ensuring the medicine trolley was locked when left unattended. People were supported to maintain good health as they have access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them. Examples were seen where people’s health had improved since the came to live at Cambridge House.

The home is light and airy, with good adaptations made for people living with dementia, such as clear signage and colours on doors. The seating in the lounge area did not meet the needs of everyone, as armchairs made it difficult for people to get up without staff support.

People had enough to eat and drink, and received support from staff where a need had been identified. Specialist diets to meet medical or religious or cultural needs were provided. People were happy with the quality of the food, but some felt they wanted more choice to be offered at each meal.

Care plans were based around the individual preferences of people as well as their medical needs. They gave a good level of detail for staff to reference if they needed to know what support was required, although some information was generic. People received the care and support as detailed in their care plans.

People had access to activities that met their needs. Group activities were available to people during the week. Some people told us they felt bored, and there were not many opportunities for people to go out into the community. People who were living with the experience of dementia had one to one activities in their room with staff using memory boxes. These stimulated their memory and helped to prompt conversation. The staff knew the people they cared for as individuals.

The home was well led by the registered manager. People, relatives and staff felt supported, and able to raise any issues or concerns with him. Quality assurance checks were used to improve the home. Results of feedback and audits were made available to people so they could see what had been found, and if any areas needed to improve. Accident and incident records were kept, and were analysed and used to improve the care provided to people. People knew how to make a complaint. Documents recorded that complaints had been responded to in accordance with the provider’s policy.

People had the opportunity to be involved in how the home was managed. People told us that residents meetings took place and they also completed surveys about the home. Information from these was used to improve the service that people received.

30 October 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we saw staff speaking with people in respectful ways. People told us the staff always knocked on their doors and waited to be invited in. One person told us "the staff are very good, they always knock on my door which makes me feel like it is my own little flat".

People we spoke with told us they felt "secure" living at Cambridge House. One person said "I know this is my home now and the staff keep me safe". The same person told us "I do not have much but the staff treat it all as important, this makes me feel they value me and look after me".

We observed care and support being provided and saw staff addressed people by their chosen name. We looked in people's care plans and found their prefered name was written in large bold letters next to people's photographs in the front of their files. This meant staff were clear about the name people wanted to be known by.

11 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We were told by people who used the service that their right to privacy was maintained at all times and the advice and support they received from the registered manager and staff were given in a way that maintained their dignity. People said they were involved in the planning of their care and they had choice in the food they were served.

People told us they knew who to speak to if they had to make a complaint. They said any comments or concern raised were listened to and dealt with to their satisfaction.

Two people we spoke with told us they received their medicines on time and staff had explained to them why they were prescribed their medicines. One person said, “I administer my medication myself. Although the staff keep an eye on my medication, to make sure I have sufficient medication. They also order my medication for me”.

5 April 2011

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us they were involved in the planning of their care; that their named care worker discussed their support options and treatments with them and their family.

People who used the service told us they are involved in deciding what care they needed. They said staff consults with them, but the decisions are always theirs. They said they sign their care plans or their relatives sign on their behalf. People told us staff respected their privacy and upheld their dignity by providing personal care in the privacy of their bedrooms and by locking the bathroom door when they are using the room. People said staff always knock and wait on them to answer their doors before entering their bedrooms.

People who used the service told us they knew whom their carers were and that they were able to make and maintained good relationship with them. People told us the staff were very good and will inform their relatives of any change in their health care needs, and usually a care worker accompanied them to hospital appointments or to Accident and Emergency department should this become necessary.