CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cambridge Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Overall rating remains Good; this targeted inspection found people’s pressure care, nutrition and hydration were being managed, but oral care records were not always complete.
Inspectors visited the home on 17 March 2021. They looked at specific concerns about pressure care, nutrition, hydration and oral care. They also checked infection prevention and control, including how the home was responding to COVID-19 risks.
Inspectors found people had suitable pressure-relieving equipment and that their care plans and daily records showed pressure relief was provided. People at risk of poor nutrition had food and drink records, regular weight checks and support with special diets.
The inspection did not rate the service again. Safe and Effective were both recorded as inspected but not rated, because only specific parts were checked. The previous overall rating was Good and remains Good.
Inspectors found some oral care records were incomplete or inaccurate. They recommended regular checks of these records. The home also improved its admission policy after inspectors found the process and written evidence about isolation suitability were not clear.
Pressure care
People had suitable pressure-relieving equipment. Their care plans and daily records showed that pressure relief was provided.
“People at the home were observed to have appropriate pressure relieving equipment in place, care plans reflected the need for this equipment and daily records evidenced people received pressure relief.” from the report
Nutrition and hydration
People at risk of poor nutrition had records for food and drink, regular weight checks and support with specialised diets.
“People who were at risk of poor nutrition had records in place to monitor what they ate and drank, and their weights were monitored regularly.” from the report
Risk management
Inspectors found that people’s risks were identified and managed, with care plans updated when needs increased.
“Risks to people living at Cambridge Court were identified and well managed.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements, including PPE, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Incomplete oral care records
needs fixingSome morning and night-time oral care records were missing or inaccurate. Inspectors recommended regular audits to check that care is recorded correctly.
“The recording of oral care was not always accurate and there were some instances of records not being completed for morning and night time oral care support.” from the report
Admission process
needs fixingThere was no clear process for admitting residents and limited written evidence about whether new residents were suitable to complete isolation on admission. The home addressed this after the inspection.
“We found that there was not a clear process for admitting residents to the home and there was a lack of written evidence for assessing residents for suitability to complete an isolation period on admission.” from the report
Referral delay
minorThere was one delay in referring someone to a district nurse team. The manager acted quickly after becoming aware and resolved it.
“There was one instance of a delay in a referral to a district nurse team, the registered manager had acted quickly and resolved the issue when she was made aware.” from the report
- 01How do you now audit oral care records to make sure morning and night-time support is recorded accurately?
- 02What is the current process for admitting new residents and recording whether they can safely complete an isolation period?
- 03How do you monitor pressure-relieving equipment and confirm that pressure relief is provided and recorded each day?
- 04How are food, drink and weight records reviewed for people at risk of poor nutrition?
- 05How do you make sure referrals to district nurses and other health professionals are made without delay?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about pressure care, nutrition, hydration and oral care, with infection control also checked; it did not reassess the full Safe or Effective key questions and did not assess the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection and a few issues addressed during the visit.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 9 and 10 January 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care files, medicines, recruitment records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, good health care support and respectful care. People had personalised care plans, activities and support with their wishes.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the December 2016 inspection. Safety checks, moving and handling practice, staffing and quality monitoring had improved. Inspectors still found some issues, including consent not always being recorded correctly, medicines trolley keys being left accessible and parts of the building needing refurbishment.
Improved safety checks
The home had acted on the previous finding about bed rails and window restrictors. Inspectors saw evidence that regular safety checks were now taking place.
“During this inspection we found that improvements had been made and there was evidence of regular safety checks being carried out.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed calm, kind and respectful interactions.
“During the inspection staff were observed to be kind, compassionate and respectful towards people” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, histories and interests. People and relatives were involved in creating and reviewing them.
“Care records were person centred and produced with the involvement of the person and relatives and were reviewed regularly.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
The home provided group and individual activities, themed events and trips out. Inspectors saw evidence that people enjoyed taking part.
“We saw evidence of a wide range of both group and individual activities, themed activities and trips out.” from the report
Stronger quality monitoring
The home had improved how it responded to problems found through audits and checks. Inspectors saw that actions were being completed.
“During this inspection it was evidenced that this was now being carried out and actions were being completed where issues were identified.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingOne record showed that relatives had given consent where the person had capacity to consent themselves. The manager said this would be addressed.
“However one care file indicated that where capacity was not an issue, consent was not obtained from the person but from relatives.” from the report
Medicine trolley security
needs fixingA nurse briefly left keys in an unlocked medicine trolley while attending to someone elsewhere in the lounge. The trolley was locked immediately after inspectors raised this.
“whilst attending to a person sat at the other side of the lounge, the nurse had left keys in the unlocked/open medication trolley.” from the report
Areas needing refurbishment
minorAlthough much of the home had been refurbished, some parts still needed work. One area was described as dark and uninviting, with further changes planned.
“One part of the home appeared dark and uninviting, this was discussed during the inspection” from the report
Weekend staffing
needs fixingMost evidence showed staffing was sufficient, but one person said the home was sometimes short-staffed at weekends. The manager said more staff were being recruited.
“one commented that the home were sometimes short at weekends.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people who have capacity give their own consent for care?
- 02What checks are now in place to prevent medicine trolley keys being left accessible?
- 03Have the planned refurbishments been completed, particularly in the area inspectors found dark and uninviting?
- 04How many staff are scheduled at weekends, and how do you cover any gaps?
- 05What improvements have been made since this January 2018 inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 2018 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 Cambridge Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 August 2012.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.