# Ambercare (North west) Ltd *Operated by Ambercare (North West) Ltd.* Ambercare (North west) Ltd is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Oldham. ## CQC Ratings | Key question | Rating | | --- | --- | | Overall | Good | | Safe | Good | | Effective | Good | | Caring | Good | | Responsive | Good | | Well-led | Good | Rating published: 27/05/2025 ## Practical info - Postcode: OL2 7UT - Registered manager: Kershaw, Susan - Local authority: Oldham - Region: North West - City: Oldham - Last CQC check: 27/May/2025 - 00:00 ## Inspection findings ### Other - Finding - Evidence: Positive workplace culture; staff expressed satisfaction with their roles. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: Registered manager understood duty of candour obligations. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: People and families involved in care planning and 12-weekly reviews of care. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and independence during care delivery. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: People supported with continuity of care from regular, familiar carers. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: Staff trained in safeguarding and infection prevention and control; PPE used correctly. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: Sufficient staffing levels with punctual attendance; no missed calls reported by people using the service. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: Robust pre-employment checks including DBS were completed for all recruited staff. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: People and relatives consistently reported feeling safe and praised the kindness, patience and consistency of care staff. - Published: 2023-01-19 - **medication_management** _(minor)_ - Evidence: We found some minor improvements were needed in medicine administration records (MAR), including more consistent use of body maps to show where creams should be applied. - Published: 2023-01-19 - **record_keeping** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: Although the majority of care records were comprehensive, some lacked detail. For example, one person who received catheter care did not have an appropriate care plan. - Published: 2023-01-19 - **supervision_appraisal** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: Staff supervision had fallen behind and had not been carried out every 3 months as outlined in the service staff training policy. - Published: 2023-01-19 - **governance** _(critical)_ - Evidence: The provider had failed to provide consistent oversight of the service. This was a breach of regulation 17 (good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. - Published: 2023-01-19 - **incident_learning** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: There was no over-arching analysis of accident or incidents. We found one person had received minor injuries from a repeated incident, which might have been identified if analysis had taken place. - Published: 2023-01-19 - Finding - Evidence: The service did not use agency staff, promoting continuity of care. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: People reported carers usually arrived on time and visits were rarely missed. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: The registered manager took immediate action to implement improved medicines procedures following inspection. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: All 39 respondents in the May 2017 quality assurance survey responded positively to dignity and respect questions. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Care plans were person-centred and thorough, reviewed every three months or more frequently if required. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Staff received regular supervision every three months with opportunity to request more frequent sessions. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Staff had undertaken a variety of training which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Appropriate recruitment checks had been carried out on all staff to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: People told us they felt safe with the care and support provided by staff. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **record_keeping** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: Some of the medicines recorded on the sheet did not have a dose recorded against them...signatures to show that a medicine had been given had been omitted on numerous occasions. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **governance** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: Monthly audits of the MARs and care plan documentation were carried out. However, these had not identified the problems we found with medicines management. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **medication_management** _(critical)_ - Evidence: paracetamol had been given at 09.30 and again at 12.30...the safe dosage for paracetamol and tramadol is for it to be given no more frequently than every 4-6 hours. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **medication_management** _(critical)_ - Evidence: One medicine had been given, but not signed for on the previous twelve days. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **medication_management** _(critical)_ - Evidence: We observed a visiting carer remove the medicines from the blister pack and give them to the person, without first checking the MAR. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Accessible Information Standard met; information provided in easy read, large print and other languages as required - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Business continuity plan in place covering flu pandemic, loss of premises, IT failure, fuel shortages and severe weather - Published: 2020-01-29 ## Source Data published by the [Care Quality Commission](https://www.cqc.org.uk/) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Canonical page: https://homecarecompass.co.uk/agency/1-2695936235 HomeCare Compass is an independent guide and is not affiliated with the CQC.