CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Camberley Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear risk assessments, safeguarding procedures and emergency plans. Staffing numbers and skills matched residents' needs during the unannounced visit, although relatives gave mixed views about staffing levels.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported to access health services and staff followed professional advice. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices and that mental capacity and least restrictive principles were being followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not separately reported or rated in this targeted inspection. The report says care was person-centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy and human rights.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People could raise concerns in accessible ways, and inspectors found that complaints were investigated and used for learning. One relative's ongoing dissatisfaction was being handled separately with the Local Authority.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive leadership, effective audits and timely regulatory notifications. The manager and provider were working with external professionals to address staffing pressures.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, but staffing pressures and an ongoing family complaint need attention.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. Inspectors looked at concerns about staffing, risk management, people's health needs and complaints. They met all six residents, spoke with three residents, four staff members and six relatives, and reviewed care plans, risk records, complaints and quality checks.
Inspectors found good systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood people's risks, health needs, communication and emotional needs. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and receive care in a way that respected their dignity and rights.
The inspection was prompted by concerns, but inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from them. However, staffing feedback was mixed, with a high number of staff having left. One family member remained unhappy about their relative's care, and the Local Authority was working with those involved.
The service was inspected but not rated. The four areas inspected were not given new ratings. They had all previously been rated Good at the last comprehensive inspection, published in April 2018. CQC said it would continue monitoring information until the next inspection.
People were kept safe
Staff knew residents well and understood how to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments gave staff clear guidance about people's individual needs.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse.” from the report
Choice and independence
Residents were encouraged to make decisions, develop skills and live as independently as possible. Staff used suitable communication methods to support people's choices.
“The model of care and setting maximised people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Good health support
People were referred to health professionals when needed, and care records included specialist advice. Health professionals gave consistently positive feedback about the support provided.
“People were appropriately referred to health care professionals to support their wellbeing and we received consistently positive feedback from the other professionals involved in people's support.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff understood people's emotional needs and responded to anxiety and behaviour in an individual way. Inspectors found that care promoted dignity, privacy and human rights.
“Care was person-centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy and human rights.” from the report
Open leadership
Inspectors found positive relationships between the manager, staff, residents and other professionals. Governance checks helped monitor care quality and safety.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingA high number of staff had left, and staff described pressure on the remaining team. Relatives' views were mixed, with some saying there were not enough staff.
“But the pressure the whole team is under at the moment is having such a negative effect on all of us.” from the report
Ongoing family complaint
needs fixingOne family member was still dissatisfied with their relative's care. The Local Authority was working with the people involved to seek a resolution.
“The Local Authority are engaging with all parties to seek a resolution to these ongoing concerns.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are currently working here, and has the high number of staff departures been resolved?
- 02How do you make sure agency or temporary staff understand each resident's needs and risks?
- 03What was the outcome of the ongoing family complaint, and what changes were made as a result?
- 04How are residents involved in decisions about their care, risks and daily routines?
- 05How do you check that health professional advice and care plan guidance are being followed?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of specific concerns about Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led care, plus infection control; all four areas were inspected but not rated, and the previous Good ratings were not reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls, but some outbreak plans needed further assessment.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than giving a full assessment of the home.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, the layout and hygiene of the home, and the infection control policy. Staff also helped people understand restrictions and stay connected with loved ones.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively. Some arrangements needed further assessment after updated government guidance, and the manager was reassessing them with help from the provider.
Clear communication
Staff adapted information about restrictions and infection control to people's communication needs. They used simplified communication, easy-read resources and tailored discussions.
“People's individual communication needs were addressed by staff who used simplified communication, easy read resources and individually tailored discussions with people” from the report
Support for wellbeing
The home helped people keep in touch with loved ones and continue activities during restrictions. People could use video calls, the garden, daily exercise and activities in their rooms.
“People could video call with their loved ones and their rooms were equipped with additional items which they liked to enable more indoor activities such as arts and crafts.” from the report
Practical infection controls
The home changed its layout to support PPE access, visitor screening, social distancing and staff breaks. It also had plans for people's individual needs if someone had to self-isolate.
“The registered manager reviewed the environment in the service and a range of changes were made to enable easy access to PPE, social distancing and effective IPC practice.” from the report
Outbreak planning needed review
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively. Some arrangements needed further assessment after updated government guidance.
“However, some arrangements in line with the social care winter plan needed further assessment following the recently updated government guidance.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the reassessment of the arrangements under the social care winter plan?
- 02How would the home manage an infection outbreak while meeting each person's individual needs?
- 03How are visitors screened and supported to avoid spreading infection?
- 04How often are staff and people using the service tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 05How will people's wellbeing be supported if they need to self-isolate?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, recorded under Safe as inspected but not rated; it was not a full assessment of the other four key questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Camberley Cottage
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.