CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Camden Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Requires Improvement; inspectors found infection control, risk assessment and management oversight problems, although people felt safe and medicines were managed safely.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 10 November 2020. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about infection control, equipment, staffing and management. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home did not always protect people from infection or risks. Some infection control measures were not followed, some risks were not properly assessed, and there were gaps in medicines protocols. Staffing levels were said by staff to be insufficient at busy times, although an extra staff member was added after this was discussed.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 27 September 2019. The other three question ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
People felt safe
People said they liked the staff and felt safe with them. Relatives also said their family members were safe.
“People told us they liked the staff and felt safe with them.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were stored safely and given by trained staff. The electronic system was reported to reduce errors.
“An electronic medicines management system was in place that was effective, and staff confirmed this system reduced errors occurring.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, including when concerns should be reported to the local authority or CQC.
“Staff knew how to identify abuse and who to report their concerns to.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The home completed appropriate checks before staff started work.
“The provider checked staff's suitability to work with people before they commenced employment.” from the report
Infection control gaps
seriousSome infection control procedures were not followed. Examples included missing hand-cleaning facilities, an open waste bin and communal seating that had not been spaced out.
“People were not always safe from the spread of infection. Good infection control practices were not always followed.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousSome people had care plans but no supporting risk assessments, including for nutrition and falls. This meant it was not clear how the care plans had been developed to manage the risks.
“Where people were at risk of falls and had a sensor mat or crash mat in place; a care plan was in place but no risk assessment” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousQuality assurance did not consistently identify or address risks. Some care reviews were out of date, family involvement was not evidenced, and learning from incidents was not recorded effectively.
“Quality assurance arrangements and systems for identifying risk were not always effective and there had been a lack of consistent management oversight of the service.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingAll staff spoken with said staffing levels were not sufficient during the day. The provider responded by adding a staff member at busy morning and evening times.
“Staff said they needed an additional staff member to enable care to be provided effectively.” from the report
Missing PRN protocols
needs fixingProtocols for medicines given only when needed were not in place. Inspectors said these protocols provide an extra safeguard.
“Protocols for as required medicines, known as PRN medicines, were not in place.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to infection control, including hand-cleaning facilities, high-touch cleaning records and communal seating?
- 02Have risk assessments now been completed for people at risk of falls or poor nutrition?
- 03Are protocols for as-required medicines now in place and being checked?
- 04How are care reviews, family involvement and learning from incidents now recorded?
- 05Has the new manager started, and who is currently responsible for the home while management arrangements are being established?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2020 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, September 2019
Camden Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 09 September 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, a relative, staff and a health professional, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, regular risk reviews, suitable training and clean premises.
People were treated kindly and staff knew their routines and preferences. Care plans were reviewed, activities and healthcare support were available, and people and relatives were asked for their views.
This was the first inspection since the provider registered with the CQC. The report says the home would continue to be monitored and could be inspected sooner if concerns were received.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected their routines and supported their independence and dignity.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their preferred routines and preferences.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, needs and protected characteristics. People had choices about food, activities and how they were supported.
“People's care plans contained individualised information.” from the report
Good management
People, relatives and staff were confident in the management. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to make improvements.
“Quality monitoring systems were in place and effective in driving improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff available when residents need help?
- 02How are my relative's medicines administered, checked and reviewed?
- 03How will you record and review my relative's personal routines, preferences and changing needs?
- 04What activities, religious support and community visits would be available for my relative?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how will the home keep us informed about the response?
This was an unannounced first inspection since registration and covered the home and care provided across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2019 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 Camden Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 July 2018.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.