Archived: Cambron House

Updated 9 November 2015

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 was 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 14 October 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people using the service. We spoke with the manager, the deputy manager and one nurse. We also spoke with six care staff and the cook. We spoke with six visiting relatives. A visiting social worker and an advocate were undertaking an assessment and we spent time speaking to them about the service. This helped us evaluate the quality of interactions that took place between people living in the home and the staff who supported them.

We spent time observing care throughout the service. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We did not ask the provider to send us a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Prior to the inspection visit we gathered information from a number of sources. We looked at the information received about the service from notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the manager. We also looked on the NHS Choices website to gather further information about the service. We also spoke with the local council quality assurance officer who also undertakes periodic visits to the home. They told us the manager had responded appropriately to deal with concerns raised about the service.

We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. We looked at five people’s written records, including the plans of their care. We also looked at the systems used to manage people’s medication, including the storage and records kept. We looked at the quality assurance systems to check if they were robust and identified areas for improvement.

Updated 9 November 2015

The inspection took place on 14 October 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection, in April 2014, the service was judged compliant with the regulations inspected.

Cambron House is a care home providing accommodation for up to 38 older people. It is situated in the area of Bramley, approximately six miles from Rotherham town centre. It provides accommodation on both the ground and the first floor and has parking to the front of the building and accessible gardens at the rear.

The service has a manager but has not submitted an application to be registered. The manager commenced employment with the service on the 10 August 2015. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The arrangements for handling and administrating medicines were safe and people received their medicines as prescribed. However, we found some of the systems to record and store medication was not sufficiently robust.

Most of the people living at the home were unable to communicate with us in a meaningful way as they had limited capacity. Therefore we spoke to all of the visitors to the home during the inspection to gain their views of the service.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to

recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed in the service.

The manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were policies and procedures in place and key staff had been trained. This helped to make sure people were safeguarded from excessive or unnecessary restrictions being place on them.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. We saw evidence that the home worked closely with GP’s, district nurses, community psychiatric nurses, dieticians and tissue viability nurses.

There were sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a balanced diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink. Our observations over meal times told us they enjoyed the meals and there was always something on the menu as an alternative.

We found the home had a relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. Staff demonstrated good distraction techniques when managing people who may need additional support to manage their behaviours.

Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the manager and felt that they were listened to. Relatives told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.

The service has taken some action to ensure the environment is dementia friendly. However, we have made a recommendation that the provider consider best practice guidance in relation to the flooring, lighting and throughout the communal areas of the home, and the use of contrasting colours on the corridors.