Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Camden Chinese Community Centre, London.

Camden Chinese Community Centre in London is a Homecare agencies specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults over 65 yrs, dementia, mental health conditions, personal care, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The last inspection date here was 18th March 2020

Camden Chinese Community Centre is managed by Camden Chinese Community Centre.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Camden Chinese Community Centre
      9 Tavistock Place
      London
      WC1H 9SN
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      02073888883
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Good
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-03-18
    Last Published 2019-02-20

Local Authority:

    Camden

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

21st November 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The overall feedback from people using the service and their relatives was positive. People and relatives were satisfied with the support received apart from the arrangements for the length and timing of visits.

Although positive feedback was received we found shortfalls in how the service was run. The issues identified during our previous inspection, related to risk assessment had not been addressed to the standard required by the Regulations. The issue related to time allowed for staff travel between calls had not been addressed. The standard of care planning at the service had improved, however, it required further work to ensure people received fully personalised care.

During this inspection we identified further shortfalls demonstrating the service was not meeting the standards required by the Regulations and current national guidelines.

We found that medicines had not been managed safely and in line with current national guidelines.

Staff received training in safeguarding people, however, the service had not had effective systems in place to protect people and staff form potential financial exploitation.

The service did not operate effective systems to ensure it met the requirements of the Regulations. Some limited systems were in place to help provide a safe service and these included management of accidents and incidents, infection control and staff recruitment. The service provision had not been regularly monitored to provide safe, effective and high standards of care.

Staff had received training in the number of areas to help them carry out their roles. However, the service’s approach to training was not systemic in ensuring staff were fully trained and competent in all the areas of the service provision. Staff skills and competencies had not been checked and staff direct work with people had not been observed to ensure they provided safe, effective care that was in line with the current national guidelines.

Where people lacked capacity, people’s files had limited information about which decisions people could make and how staff could support them in deciding about aspects of day to day care.

People were asked for feedback about the service via a recently completed annual customer satisfaction survey. The outcomes had been analysed and an action plan created to address highlighted issues. We saw that formal complaints made to the service had been promptly looked into and action was taken to resolve

There were sufficient staff deployed to support people. When possible, people were visited by the same staff which helped continuity of care and development of friendly relationships between people and the staff supporting them.

People were supported to eat a balanced diet that met their individual needs. Staff helped people to have access to respective health and social care professionals when people’s health deteriorated and their needs had changes.

Staff were encouraged to participate in monthly team meetings where a variety of topics related to care delivery had been discussed. In general, staff felt supported by their colleagues and the management team at the service.

Staff supporting people were compassionate and caring. They were able to demonstrate a good level of understanding around the needs of people they supported. The management team and staff spoke kindly and with dignity about people. People felt their privacy and dignity was protected by staff during the provision of personal care.

The service has been rated as Requires Improvement. More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Requires Improvement (Report published on 16 January 2018)

About the service: The Camden Chinese Community Centre [Housebound Project] is a domiciliary care agency. it is an organisation that provides services for members of predominately but not only Chinese community. The organisation provided a range of socially inclusive services, such as, social welfare, recreational and leisure acti

21st November 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We carried out this announced inspection of on 21 November 2017.

The Camden Chinese Community Centre (Housebound Project) provided home care to thirty people from the Chinese community.

The support was provided for older people, people who have mental health difficulties and people with a physical disability. Care staff employed by the service spoke Cantonese and a number of southern Chinese dialects.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service provided traditional support based on trust between staff and the management team. However, they were not fully operating as required by the Regulations. There were areas of the service delivery that required immediate improvement to ensure the service provided high quality of care that was in line with most current standards of good practice.

The service did not have their own risk assessments and risk management plans in place to provide staff with detailed information about the people they were providing care to. There was a risk people could receive support that was not safe.

The service did not draw up plans of care together with people who used the service. Available care plans did not contain full information about how people would like to receive the support, their likes, dislikes and personal preferences.

There were enough staff deployed to support people, however, relatives told us care visits had not always taken place as scheduled as care staff had not been given enough time to transfer between visits.

There were many positive aspects about the service. We found that the overall care and support provided was of a good standard and people were happy with it. This included the continuity of care provided by staff many of whom had worked for the service for many years. They took pride in supporting people.

The service helped to protect people from abuse. Staff were aware of the principles of safeguarding adults and they knew what to do if they thought a person could be at risk of harm from others. The service’s safe recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were supporting people. Staff followed the service’s procedures to ensure medicines were managed correctly and that people were safe from the avoidable risk of infection.

Staff received regular training as well as managerial and peer support. They spoke positively about the support provided and they thought it enabled them to work with people effectively. People using the service and family members confirmed the staff were sufficiently trained and had the knowledge to care for people.

The service supported people predominately from the Chinese community. However, they were aiming to care for people from other ethnic groups, and they were in the process of recruiting appropriate staff to enable this.

People were supported to receive sufficient food and drink of their choice and have a diet that met their individual needs.

Staff supported people to have access to external health professionals when people’s needs had changed or when their health deteriorated.

Staff asked people for their consent before providing care. People who did not have the capacity were supported by staff to make decisions about their care that were safe, unrestrictive and in line with their human rights.

People received care from staff that were kind, patient and proactive in supporting them. People were usually visited by the same staff, who knew them well and who were matched with people based on certain attributes such as personal background and Chinese dialect spoken. This helped people to create friendly and meaningful relationships with staff who cared for them. Staff r

15th October 2015 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We carried out an announced inspection on 15 October 2015. The last inspection of this service was carried out on 14 January 2014 and all the standards we inspected were met.

The Camden Chinese Community Centre (Housebound Project) provides domiciliary care to thirty people in the Chinese community Care and support is provided for older people, people who have mental ill health and people with a physical disability. Care workers employed by the project speak Cantonese and a number of southern Chinese dialects.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

Care plans we saw were not always consistent in their formats and they were not always reviewed regularly by the provider.

There were suitable arrangements in place to safeguard people for abuse and harm, including procedures, to follow, how to report and record information.

Assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them, including action to be taken to minimise risks identified.

There were appropriate procedures in place for the safe recruitment of staff and evidence that all relevant checks had been carried out.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of the people they supported.

All staff had received mandatory training as well as training in positive behaviour support, dementia and malnutrition care and assistance with eating.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal from the registered manager. This included a discussion about any arising issues with the people they supported and any training needs they had to better care for those whom they supported.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and this was a fundamental expectation of the service. They had a good understanding of equality and diversity and told us about the need to treat people as individuals.

People were supported to actively express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

The service had a complaints policy and a copy of this was detailed in the communication folder kept in people’s homes. There was a system in place for addressing any complaints and ensuring feedback was given to the complainant and that any learning had taken place.

The quality of the service was monitored by regularly speaking with people to ensure they were happy with the support they received. Unannounced spot checks were also undertaken to review the quality of the service provided.

At this inspection we found one breach in regulations. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

14th January 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

During the inspection we used an interpreter and spoke with five people who used the service. We also spoke with four care workers, the manager and the office manager. We reviewed four people’s files and the agency’s policies and procedures, and looked at people’s records which were kept at their homes.

We noted people were satisfied with the care they received. They told us the care they received was “good”. One person said they were “very happy with the service provided”. People told us staff arrived and left on time. They said staff completed the tasks before leaving. Staff communicated with people in Cantonese. This ensured that communication between staff and people who used the service was effective.

The agency had a safeguarding policy. We noted staff had attending safeguarding training and were aware of what to do to safeguard people from abuse. The agency had a recruitment procedure which ensured that the staff employed were appropriately vetted in terms of their skills, knowledge and suitability to be able to provide care and support that met people’s needs.

Records were kept securely in lockable filing cabinets in a room. We noted people’s records and the agency’s policies, including the complains policy, were written in Cantonese. This ensured that the written information was accessible to people who used the service.

30th December 2011 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Three main languages are spoken by people who use the service. These are Cantoneese, Mandarin and Hakka. We were informed by the Manager that people who use the service only spoke these languages.

We spoke with a small number of relatives and a local authority who commission monitor and review the care provided by the Chinese Housebound Project.

Relatives we spoke with said they had been involved in formulating the care plan and had a say on the delivery of care. Relatives said a folder with a care plan is kept in the house of the person receiving the service.

Relatives we spoke with said that there was a complaints procedure and this had been translated into a Chinese language.

Relatives we spoke with said that they found the staff responsive and supportive.

Relatives said they had attended consultion events organised by the Chinese Housebound Project.

The commissioning local authority had no concerns with the quality of care provided by the Chinese Housebound Project.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We used two Cantonese speaking interpreters and spoke with seven people using the service and two care workers. We also talked to management staff and checked the files of the people using the service and other documents kept at the agency's office. All the people using the service told us they were satisfied with the support they received. They told us care workers were "very good" and did "extra work" for them. They said they could communicate with the care workers because they spoke the same language.

People using the service told us they were treated with respect and dignity. People felt safe in the service and they could talk to the other people using the service or care workers. They also indicated that care workers knew their needs. One person said: "[A care worker] knows who is here, who is well, who is not well. [The care worker] arranges for us to go to hospital [if we are not well]".

We noted that the agency actively sought people's views regarding the quality of the service. People indicated staff rang or visited them to ask if they were receiving care that met their needs. We noted that people were asked to complete a feedback form as part of the agency's annual quality assurance system. This ensured that people were able to comment on the quality of the service they received.

 

 

Latest Additions: