Archived: London Borough of Richmond upon Thames - 40b Cambridge Park Residential Care Home

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

During our visit we saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect following the Council's policy, procedure and training provided. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust, staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported and had received training. Details of specific areas or circumstances under which people may be particularly vulnerable were written down in the care plans we saw.

Robust quality assurance systems were in place to ensure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced risks to people and enhanced the opportunity of the service to continue to improve.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly, therefore reducing the risk to people.

The staff rotas were flexible and took people's individual care needs and routines into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

The 2 case files we sampled contained health and care needs assessments. The information was split between two files per person with one dealing with person centred care, whilst the other was focussed on health. A sample of 2 care plans we looked at were up to date and there was written evidence that the people's care reviews were taking place. Information included likes and dislikes, hobbies and interests and specialist health, dietary, mobility and equipment requirements. People told us "I'm going to hospital tomorrow to have my teeth done", "I've been out to lunch today" and "I go to church".

There was an advocacy service available if people required one and this meant that people could access additional support.

The service was purpose built, enabled people to move around freely, safely and met their physical needs.

Visitors were able to see people in private and visiting times were flexible as demonstrated by the policy and procedure in place.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by well trained, attentive and caring staff. We saw that staff were patient, encouraging and supported people to make their own choices. People told us, 'I like you', referring to a member of staff and "The staff are very nice".

There were annual satisfaction surveys sent out centrally by Richmond Council who ran the service. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed and house meetings took place when required. These were a forum for people to put forward their views, suggestions and opinions.

People's preferences, interests, hobbies and diverse needs were recorded and updated within their person centred care plans and activities were also recorded in their daily notes. This enabled care and support to be provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People were engaged in a range of activities at home and outside the service during our visit. That this was the norm was reflected in the records kept and what people told us. There were group and individual activities available based upon people's preferences and interests. The home had access to transport, that enabled people to take an active part in their local community.

People were aware of how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They said that any problems they had were generally sorted out on the spot or during house meetings . We saw this during our inspection visit. We looked at how complaints were investigated and found the system was satisfactory. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The home's management structure was incorporated within that of Richmond Council and there was a clear management chain that outlined specific areas of responsibility and culpability. People told us and we saw that the home's management team was pro-active, listened to their needs, opinions and acted upon them. The service worked well with other agencies and services as reflected in the in depth accompanying 'Hospital passport' information provided by the home if people had to visit hospital.

They decided the activities they wanted to do and type of care and support they received and when and how they got it. "I went bowling". "I go to the park and river".

They told us that staff treated them well and there were enough staff to support them. "Staff help me organise my activities".

They also told us they were asked what they thought about the home. One person said "Staff are pretty good".

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect during our visit.

They were supported to make decisions and their opinions sought in a relaxed, unhurried and comfortable way.

The records we saw were generally up to date or being updated as the home was updating its support plan system.

The home was clean, tidy and well maintained.

There was a complaints policy and procedure that was easy for people to understand and access.

There were suitable numbers of staff on duty and rostered who were competent, experienced and knew people using the service well.