CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Waterbeach
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff assessed risks, knew how to respond to possible harm and gave medicines safely. There were enough staff at the inspection, but staff said a lack of permanent staff sometimes meant people could not do what they wanted.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and skills needed, and people were supported with nutrition, health care, equipment and decision-making. Inspectors found that staff followed professional advice.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, thoughtful and respectful. They knew people well, supported independence and paid attention to how people communicated their wishes.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people’s needs, preferences, routines and communication in detail. People had activities and community links, and there was an accessible complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff worked together and quality checks were used to identify and address problems. The registered manager was on long-term leave, while another manager oversaw the home and intended to apply to manage it.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Waterbeach was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some limits on staffing and record keeping.
The inspection was announced with less than 24 hours’ notice. One inspector visited on 18 and 23 January 2018. They observed care, spoke with people, staff and managers, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment, training, safety and quality checks.
The home supports four people in an adapted single-storey building. Inspectors found that staff understood people’s risks and needs, gave medicines safely, followed infection control procedures and had suitable training. People were supported with food, drink, health care, communication and decisions about their daily lives.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans gave detailed guidance about people’s routines, health needs, communication and preferences. There were activities, community links and a complaints process. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speak gently, protect people’s dignity and give them time to communicate. Staff adapted their approach to each person.
“We saw that staff members told people what they were going to do before doing it, which meant that people were not suddenly surprised.” from the report
Detailed personal care plans
Care plans covered people’s histories, routines, preferences, communication and complex health needs. Daily records showed that care was delivered in line with the plans.
“Plans were written in detail, which provided clear guidance for staff members care practice.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff had training for medicines, including medicines given through a tube and emergency epilepsy medicines. Records matched the medicines remaining in stock.
“Records to show that medicines were administered were completed appropriately.” from the report
Support for choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, choose where to spend time and take part in daily activities. Equipment and technology helped people move around and remain independent.
“The service was good at ensuring people were able to make their own decisions.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home investigated incidents and used the findings to reduce risks. Managers also monitored safeguarding, medicines and other areas through audits.
“This shows that auditing and analysis systems were effective in identifying issues and taking the appropriate actions to resolve them.” from the report
Permanent staffing levels
needs fixingThere were enough staff during the inspection, but both staff members spoken with said there were not enough permanent staff. They said this sometimes stopped people going out in the evening.
“Both staff members told us that this meant people were sometimes unable to do the things they wanted to do.” from the report
Records were in different places
minorThe home was moving from paper records to an electronic system. During the change, information could be held in different locations, and one staff member felt some records lacked enough detail.
“This meant that information could be in different locations, however staff we spoke with knew exactly where to find each document as they had helped write them.” from the report
Possible medicine errors
needs fixingMonitoring identified that medicine errors might be an issue. The home was reviewing staff competence in giving medicines, although inspectors found medicines were administered safely during their visit.
“Despite this, the analysis identified that medicine errors may be an issue, and although no trends were identified, action had been taken to review staff competency in administering medicines.” from the report
Staff awareness of questionnaires
minorThe manager said questionnaires had been sent to people, relatives, staff and health professionals, but staff said they did not know about them.
“However, staff members told us they were not aware of these questionnaires.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are currently working at the home, and can people go out in the evenings when they want to?
- 02How do you make sure medicine errors are prevented and that every staff member remains competent to give medicines?
- 03Have all care records now been transferred to one system, and how do you check that they contain enough detail?
- 04How do you gather and act on the views of people, relatives and staff?
- 05Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the registered manager is away?
This was an announced inspection of the whole service and all five quality areas, including care, the premises and how the home was managed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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 Waterbeach
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2016.
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.