Archived: 2 Cambridge Road

Updated 17 December 2014

This announced inspection was conducted by an inspector 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. Our Expert had experience in caring for someone with learning disabilities.

Before the inspection, the provider completed 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. We reviewed historical data that we held about safeguarding and other incidents happening in the service that the provider is required to tell us about. We contacted the local authority and reviewed the information we asked the provider to send to us.

During the visit, we spoke with seven people who received support from the service, four relatives, six care staff and the registered manager. We reviewed people’s care plans and other relevant information to help us understand people’s care and support needs.

We looked at other records related to people’s care and the running of the service, including a service user quality assurance survey questionnaire,  staff recruitment and supervision records.  A copy of the client satisfaction survey was also provided for us to review as part of our planning for this inspection.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 17 December 2014

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an announced inspection, which meant the provider was informed about our visit prior to the date to ensure managers and staff would be available in the office.

At the last inspection in August 2013, we found there were no breaches in the legal requirements for the areas we looked at.

Edmund House provides support to approximately 30 people with physical and learning disabilities, who live in their own homes, in the Cambridge area. The service had a registered manager.  A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people who could make decisions for themselves were protected. The records we looked at showed that where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, best interest meetings were held in conjunction with appropriate professionals.

The three people we spoke with in a supported living setting, said they were very happy with the staff who understood their needs, and helped them to remain as independent as possible. Most people in their own homes that we spoke with were happy with the communication that  they had with the office staff. People and their relatives also told us that they were content with the staff who provided their personal care and support.

People using the service said they received safe and effective care which met their needs and promoted their well-being when they had a regular staff member. Procedures were in place to reduce the risks to people who use the service, if their regular staff member could not make the visit to provide their care. The welfare and safety of people who use the service were also minimised because there were individualised risk assessments.

We found evidence that staff training was sufficient to equip staff with the appropriate skills to support people and staff demonstrated that learning was put into practice. The provider had a system to assess staffing levels and make changes when people’s needs changed. This meant that they could be sure there were enough qualified staff to meet people’s needs.

People told us they were able to express their views about their care, and would find it easy to communicate with support staff or office staff if they had any concerns. The registered manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints in accordance with the provider’s complaints procedure.