Archived: Cameron House Care Home

Updated 20 November 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector on day one and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. There were two inspectors on day two of the inspection.

Service and service type

Cameron House Care Home 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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information and evidence we already held about the home, which had been collected via our ongoing monitoring of care services. This included notifications sent to us by the home. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send to us without delay. We also sought feedback from partner agencies and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with seven people who used the service and eight relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with eight members of staff including the intermediate care clinical operations manager, the registered manager, senior care workers, care workers, the chef, a house keeper and an activities coordinator. We also spoke to two visiting professionals.

We reviewed a range of records. This included six people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.

Updated 20 November 2019

About the service

Cameron House Care Home is a residential care home providing both personal and nursing care and is based in Bury, Greater Manchester. The service can support up to 40 people in one adapted building over two floors and there were 36 people receiving support at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We found shortfalls in the homes approach to safety and in the home’s auditing and quality monitoring processes. Equipment was not stored safely due to lack of storage. This had caused a potential trip hazard and put people at risk of falling. A sluice room that needed to be locked for safety reasons was also left unlocked on three occasions that we checked. All other areas of the home were safe. Quality assurance systems had not been effective at picking up issues identified during the inspection. We identified one regulatory breach. We have made a recommendation about the effective management of people’s oral healthcare. We have made a recommendation about supporting people to access activities and improving links with the local community.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and when to raise concerns. People received their medicines safely and recruitment practices were also safe. The home was clean and staff understood their infection control responsibilities.

Care plans were person centred and included peoples’ choices and preferences. Staff received the training they needed to carry out their roles and gave good feedback about the supervision and support they received. People were supported to eat and drink a balanced diet and were given choices. The environment was not dementia friendly and the home was aware that future refurbishment plans needed to consider this. The home supported people to make their own decisions where possible and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

Care files recorded what was important to people and what their choices and preferences were, but did not record people’s involvement in formal reviews of their care. The laundry system at the home was not always effective. People had reported that clothes were going missing in the laundry. People and relatives we spoke with told us that staff were kind and caring and that people were treated with dignity. We observed staff that were committed to their roles and were responsive to people’s needs and promoted their independence.

People did not always have suitable end of life care plans in place to advise staff of their end of life wishes and preferences and care files had not always been updated to record changes in people’s ability to communicate. There was good feedback from visiting professionals and people were supported to access health and social care professionals when they needed to.

The quality of care people received was supported by an established quality assurance process. This had not been fully effective as it had not always identified issues picked up during the inspection. The home was managed by an experienced registered manager and staff felt valued and reported a high level of job satisfaction. There was an open transparent culture that supported good practice and there was good communication with people, familes and staff.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at the last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 20 April 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified one regulatory breach in relation to good governance. We also made two recommendations to support the home to improve. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.