The Camden Society London

Updated 19 December 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

This inspection was carried out by one inspector, and one 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.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. This service also provides care and support to people living in two ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

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

We gave the service over 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and the service does not have an office based in North London where they provide care to people. We needed to be sure that the registered manager was able to organise for us a meeting space to review requested documentation and discuss matters related to the regulatory requirements and the service provision.

What we did before the inspection

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

We reviewed information we had received about the service since it was registered in December 2018. We emailed care staff employed by the service. We received feedback from five of them. We spoke with two people who used the service and one relative. We scheduled a phone call with the registered manager to discuss aspects of the service delivery and the new ways of working since the organisation joined the Thera Brand. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with the managing director, the registered manager, the deputy manager and one team coordinator. During the inspection we reviewed four people's care records, which included a range of care plans, risk assessments and Medicines Administration Records (MARs). We also looked at four staff files, complaints and quality monitoring and audit information. We visited one supported living scheme and we reviewed how staff supported two people using the service.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records and staff rotas and other documents related to the service delivery. We received feedback from two professionals who are in regular contact with the service.

Updated 19 December 2019

About the service

The Camden Society London offers support to people with a learning disability at their own home, specialist accommodation or in the community. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to nine people; five in their own homes (known as floating support) and three in a supported living scheme.

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

Before December 2018 the service was known as 60 Holmes Rd. Since December 2018 the service had been undergoing major changes. These included the provider organisation becoming a part of the Thera group in December 2018 and change in the contract for the floating support part of the service in July 2019. This was a first inspection under the new registration and as a part of Thera brand.

The changes had impacted the service and led to identification of some shortfalls in aspects of the service provision. However, feedback from people using the service, relatives and the local authority showed that the service had been proactive in making improvements. Gaps in the service delivery were being addressed and overall improvement had been observed by all stakeholders.

Staff received training and support to support people effectively. Not all staff received refresher training in positive behavioural support techniques, to support people with behaviour that may challenge. We have made a recommendation in respect of this.

Staff at times arrived late at the care visits, however, people, relatives and feedback from the local authority showed staff punctuality was improving.

There were enough staff deployed to support people and people were usually visited by the same staff who they knew. This ensured the continuity of care and helped develop positive relationships between the staff and people.

People received safe care from staff. Appropriate recruitment practices helped to ensure that only suitable staff supported people. There were systems and procedures to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed and regularly reviewed. Accidents and incidents had been monitored and action was taken to stop them from reoccurring. Medicines were managed safely and staff competencies in medicines administration had been assessed.

People were supported to live a healthy life. They received sufficient and nutritious food and drink that met their personal preferences. Staff had worked with external professionals to ensure people stayed healthy. People’s physical health had been monitored and supportive action was taken by staff when people’s health needs changed.

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.

Staff were kind and caring. Their approach to supporting people considered people’s individual needs and wishes. Staff received training in equality and diversity and had attended a good practice workshop. The aim was to help staff to provide support with respect to people’s individual characteristics and with consideration of professional boundaries.

Staff used a variety of methods to communicate with people to ensure people understood and could respond to them. Staff supported people to develop new skills and participate in a range of activities they enjoyed doing. People were encouraged to express their views about the support and the service they received. This was done through regular conversations with their lead workers and through periodic quality surveys.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care to them.

Each person had a range of person-centred care plans. These were based on people’s initial assessment and described their care and health needs and areas of additional support required. People and their relatives were involved in the care planning and reviewing process. Staff knew people’s needs well.

There was a complaint policy and procedure in place and the managers dealt with received complaints promptly.

The service had a range of quality monitoring systems in place and a development plan was formulated by the managers to ensure continuous changes and improvement to the service provision.

Managers and staff were provided with information about their roles and responsibilities within the service. There was a clear managerial structure in place and people, relatives and staff knew who to approach for support when needed. The regulatory requirements had been met and the registered manager understood their duty to communicate openly when things went wrong.

There was a positive culture within the service and a clear mission to support people with learning disability. Staff spoke positively about the managers and the ongoing support they received.

Overall external professionals spoke positively about the service. They thought staff were committed to supporting people and they provided some person-centred work which was empowering to people. They also said further work was required to support staff in becoming more confident practitioners who provided strength-based interventions that were within appropriate professional boundaries.

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

Rating at last inspection (and update): This service was registered with us on 04 December 2018.

Why we inspected This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We have made one recommendation in relation to staff training.

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.