We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cera - Peterborough on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cera - Peterborough, you can give feedback on this service.
This inspection was carried out between 4 and 6 April 2018 and was an announced inspection. At our inspection in August 2015 the service was rated as 'Good'. At this inspection in April 2018 it remained Good'. At the time of our inspection there were 163 people using the service.
The service had a registered manager. 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 received a safe service. Staff kept people safe from harm, they knew how to report any concerns and actions were taken when incidents occurred. Checks were undertaken to help determine staff's suitability before they started caring for people. Only suitable staff whose good character had been established were offered employment at the service. There was a sufficient number of staff in post who had the skills and training they needed to provide people with safe care and support. People’s medicines were administered and managed safely.
People helped determine what their care arrangements were and the provider took account of people’s wishes and choices and any future goals. People’s care and support plans were an individual record about each person’s needs and any assistance they required from staff. Risks to people were identified, and plans were put into place to promote people’s safety without limiting people’s right to choose what they wanted to do. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received a caring service. People were looked after and cared for by staff who showed compassion, respect and upheld their dignity. Staff undertook people's care in an unhurried and considerate manner. People's independence was promoted by staff who encouraged people to make their own decisions about their care. People were provided with information about advocacy services if they needed someone to speak up for them.
People received an effective service. Staff benefitted from the support, training and mentoring they were provided and this helped to promote people’s safety and wellbeing. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in meeting people’s needs. System including regular spot checks and were in place to help staff to maintain their skills and the standard of work expected from them by the registered manager.
People were supported to maintain their health by staff who enabled or supported them to access community or other primary health care services. Staff assisted people to maintain the correct level of nutritional intake of food and fluids.
People received a Responsive service. This helped them to have their needs met in a person centred way. People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives and friends when they wished to do so. There was a process in place to manage any concerns, suggestions and complaints. Complaints were resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction. Systems were in place to support people to have a dignified death.
People received a well-led service. Staff had various opportunities including meetings to feedback their experiences and receive updates about the service. Any suggestions or concerns that staff had could be raised at one to one supervision meetings or at other occasions they contacted the office. Staff were supported by the registered manager who listened and acted upon any opportunity for improvement.
Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. People who used the service and their relatives were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided and felt listened to. Actions were taken as a result of feedback to drive forward any improvements that were required.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Mears Care –Peterborough (Orton) is registered to provide personal care for people living at home. At the time of our inspection there were 149 people using the service.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 25 August 2015 and was announced. Our last inspection took place on 7 April 2014 when we assessed the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations that we had inspected.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. They had been registered since 5 July 2013. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were judged to be suitable to look after people who used the service. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed.
People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also supported to access health care services and their individual health needs were met.
People’s rights in making decisions and suggestions in relation to their support and care were valued and acted on. However, there was a lack of assessments in place to determine if people had the capacity to make decisions in relation to their care.
People were supported by staff who were trained and supported to do their job.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. The registered manager was aware of the process to follow should a person require a DoLS application to be made.
People were treated by kind, respectful and attentive staff. They and their relatives were involved in the review of people’s individual care plans.
Care was provided based on people’s individual needs and they and their family members were supported to enable people to remain living at home. There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and these were acted upon.
The registered manager was supported by a team of office staff. Staff were supported and managed to look after people in a safe way. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action had been taken where improvements were identified.
Is the service caring?
People told us that they were satisfied with the standard and quality of their support and care and often described this as being, 'Very good.' People also indicated that they liked the members of staff and through our observations we found that people engaged well with members of staff.
Is the service responsive?
Improvements had been made since previous inspection visits, which we carried out during June 2013. We saw that people's individual physical, mental and social care and support risks and needs were assessed and planned for. In addition, improvements had been made in how people's complaints had been responded to and to the satisfaction of the complainant.
We saw people's individual support and care needs were being met. People said that their call visits had helped them feel better. They said that this was because members of staff had treated them well and had helped to reduce the negative feelings of social isolation and loneliness.
Is the service safe?
People were very satisfied with how their support and care needs were being met by a consistent team of members of staff. This made people develop both trust and confidence in members of staffs' capabilities, which had made them feel safe.
Members of staff were trained and supported to safely do their job.
Risk assessments regarding people's individual health and safety were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these risks.
People were provided with safe and appropriate support and care by a sufficient number of trained and competent members of staff.
Although there was no person requiring support to restrict their freedom at the time of our inspection visit of 07 April 2014, there was staff training and information available for staff. This was regarding the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Is the service effective?
People who used the service were satisfied with how they were actively consulted about their support and care, which they said that they had agreed to. Effective arrangements were in place to ensure that, if needed, people were represented by others who were legally placed to do so.
People were able to stay living at home because their support and care needs were safely and appropriately met.
Is the service well led?
Improvements had been made since out previous inspection, which we carried out during June 2013. This was regarding the management of complaints. In addition, improvements had been made because actions had been taken in response to people's feedback in their completed surveys.
Work was in progress to improve the retention of employed members of staff so that people continued to receive consistent support and care from a stable team of staff.
Staff said that they felt supported and trained to safely do their job. Improvements had been made since our previous inspection to ensure that people who used the service received support and care from staff that were competent to safely do their job.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
We found that most people experienced care and support that met their needs. One person said, 'I've never had care as good as this before'. However when we looked at some care records, some risk assessments were incomplete and some support plans that we reviewed did not reflect the needs of people who used the service. This meant care staff may not know how to care for them in the right way.
In addition some people who used the service raised concerns that some care staff did not always have the right skills to meet their needs, did not arrive on time or stay for the agreed length of time. This means that people are at risk of not receiving the care they need in a timely way and to a sufficient standard.
Although the provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received, this was not used effectively across the whole service.
The complaints process was not always followed by staff to ensure that issues raised were fully investigated to the complainants' satisfaction.
The report, completed in July 2012 identified feedback about some of the issues which were reflected in the findings of our previous report. The provider had taken action to improve internal communication and communication with the people receiving services.
We looked at training records and found that most staff had completed refresher training in safeguarding people against the risks of abuse. Information leaflets about understanding abuse had been distributed to current as well as new people who were using the service.
Medication Administration Records (MAR) had just been implemented for people who required support to take their medicines and staff had been trained in how to use them.
The recruitment procedure had improved to ensure that the appropriate checks were in place for all staff employed at the service.
Staff had received a significant amount of training since our last inspection visit and there were improved systems in place to ensure that staff supervision and appraisals took place.
The manager had put several quality checks in place to monitor the service received by people on a regular basis.
Most people were happy with the care they received particularly from their regular carers and felt safe when carers visited them. One person said that their regular carer, "Reads my thoughts," and felt that other carers were also very good.
Some people said they experienced communication difficulties with staff in the office and one person commented that," They keep changing the carers without telling me".
All of the people that we spoke with told us that the carers always knew how to care for them but the survey results showed that a small number of friends/relatives were concerned that some carers did not understand the needs of more dependant people who were using the service such as people with dementia. They also told us that the quality of care they received was much better when they had regular carers who visited as they knew their needs better then occasional/temporary carers.