CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cambridge Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and control infection. These included visitor screening, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and plans for managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection and no rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection and no rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection and no rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection and no rating was given.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Cambridge Manor Care Home: targeted infection-control check found good practice, but the service was not rated.
Inspectors visited on 28 January 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They found checks for visitors, including temperature checks, health declarations and lateral flow tests. Personal protective equipment was available. The home was clean and clutter-free, and staff were observed following handwashing guidance.
Inspectors said they were assured about the home's arrangements for visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing possible outbreaks. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor screening
Visitors were asked to sign in, have their temperature taken, complete a health declaration and take a lateral flow test. Protective equipment was available.
“All visitors must answer a health declaration around COVID-19 and undertake a lateral flow test.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and free of clutter. Housekeeping staff were seen cleaning frequently touched areas.
“The home looked clean and was clutter free.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The building could be divided into different areas if an outbreak occurred, with an area kept available for this purpose.
“The building could be zoned into different areas should an outbreak occur.” from the report
Infection-control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely and had access to testing for residents and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are visits to the purpose-built visiting area now taking place, and what visiting arrangements are currently available?
- 02How are visitors screened and tested now, and is protective equipment provided when needed?
- 03How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and how is staff handwashing checked?
- 04What is the home's current plan for zoning the building and managing an infection outbreak?
- 05How are residents kept in contact with relatives if in-person visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only, so it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, December 2017
Rated Good and remained Good in all five areas, with kind care and safe systems, but some people reported waiting for help.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 14 November 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, safe medicines systems, suitable training, clean surroundings and good support from health professionals.
People described staff as kind and attentive. Care plans recorded people's needs and preferences, activities were available, and complaints were handled. Inspectors also noted some reported delays in getting help, a need to improve follow-through on actions, and areas still being developed.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, counted and administered through effective systems. They also found suitable arrangements for people who took medicines as required or managed their own medicines.
“The provider had systems in place which ensured that people received their medication as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected privacy and dignity, and supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home. People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed information about people's needs, preferences and life histories. Inspectors saw staff respond to individual interests and health needs.
“People's care plans were well-organised and provided staff with detailed information on how to respond to each person's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Supportive staff team
Staff had training and regular supervision. Inspectors found that staff communicated well and supported one another.
“Staff worked well together in a mutually supportive way and communicated effectively.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out regular audits covering areas such as medicines, health and safety, the environment and care plans. The manager was visible and approachable.
“There was an effective quality assurance system in place to ensure that where needed improvements were made.” from the report
Waiting for help
minorSome people said they sometimes waited a long time for help, particularly on the nursing floor. Inspectors did not find this to be a general staffing failure and saw call bells answered promptly during the visit.
“Although sometimes I have to wait a little while.” from the report
Actions not always followed through
needs fixingA provider compliance visit had identified that the system for following up actions needed improvement. Inspectors noted that this was an area for improvement.
“the system needs to be improved to ensure that actions are followed through.” from the report
Community links
minorThe home had several daily activities, but working more closely with the local community was still an area for development.
“there was scope to work more closely with the local community and this had been identified as an area for development.” from the report
Recording relatives' involvement
minorThe manager had identified a need to show more clearly in care planning records when relatives had been involved. Actions were underway.
“to make sure that relative's involvement had been evidenced in the care planning documentation.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty on the nursing floor, and how do you respond when people have to wait for help?
- 02What changes have you made to make sure actions from audits and compliance visits are followed through?
- 03How are relatives' involvement and views recorded in each person's care plan?
- 04What local community activities or links have been developed since this inspection?
- 05How would you support my relative's end of life wishes if they wanted to remain in the home?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC questions; the previous comprehensive inspection in November 2015 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2017 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 Manor Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2011.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.