The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Hanna Schwalbe Home

Kisharon Supported Living, 48 Leeside Crescent, London, NW11 0LA (020) 8458 3810

Provided and run by:
Kisharon

All Inspections

12 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection of this care home on 24 October 2013, the provider was not compliant with four of the seven standards we checked. These were for safeguarding people who use services from abuse, management of medicines, safety and suitability of premises, and supporting workers. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in all areas.

Although we were not able to speak directly with anyone using the service on this occasion, we saw staff and the manager treating the few people present with patience and consideration. There was evidence that the service liaised with the local authority when incidents occurred that may have compromised people's safety. We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse.

Improvements had been made to people's medicines records. Our checks of medicines records against remaining stock assured us that, even for short-term courses and those with variable doses, people were supported to receive their medicines as prescribed.

We found that repairs had taken place where practicable and that the communal environment was adequately maintained. This all helped to ensure that people lived in a safe and comfortable home.

Records and staff feedback assured us that staff now received better standards of supervision, training and support. We found that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

24 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three of the seven people living in the service and one visitor. Overall, people praised the service and the care provided. Comments included, 'I like it here.' We found that care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People's comments about staff included, 'staff treat me right.' We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected, and people were supported to develop independent living skills.

We found that the provider had appropriate recruitment processes, to ensure that staff working with people were of good character. However, we found that staff support arrangements were not suitable to ensure that staff delivered care and support to people safely and to an appropriate standard. There were shortfalls in aspects of staff training, supervision and team meetings.

We found that medication arrangements did not always protect people against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

We found that the environment was not always adequately maintained. For example, people told us about some parts of the home being too hot. We found some extractor fans that were not working. Systems for addressing health and safety concerns needed improvement.

We also became aware of a recent incident at the service. It demonstrated that arrangements were not suitable to ensure that people who use the service were safeguarded against the risk of abuse.

3 May 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

The home was clean, warm and had a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. There were two care staff, an assistant manager and acting manager on duty. The acting manager has been recently employed by the home. The people using the service were not able to give verbal feedback but we were able to observe and interact with them to know about their experience of living at the home. We also observed and spoke to staff, and examined the records kept at the home.

We noted that staff treated people using the service with respect and dignity. Staff were around to ensure that people were safe and received support that met their needs. People using the service were encouraged to make choices regarding their food, drinks and where they sat. We noted that people could decide when to go to bed and get up. We saw that people appeared appropriately dressed and well cared for.

We noted that staff were pleasant to people who use the service, unhurried and gave people as much time as they needed when assisting them with their meals. This ensured people using the service were treated with respect and their rights upheld. A person using the service confirmed that they were happy living at the home.

We saw that there was a good understanding between the people using the service and staff. People who used the service indicated that they were happy with the staff who supported them.

6 October 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spent the most part of our visit talking to and observing people who use the service. People told us they were happy and comfortable in the home. A person said: "I like the home". We observed people interacting with staff and each other. We saw them making hot drinks and engaging in activities in the lounge. We observed staff supporting people in a kind, sensitive and professional manner.

We asked people if they had their medication. People told us staff gave them their medication. They said they felt well. From discussions with people it was evident that they had a general practitioner (GP) and they had attended medical appointments.

People who use the service told us they were happy with staff. They said staff treated them with respect and dignity. People's views can be summarised by the following comments:

"The staff are good; I am happy with staff'.

'I like the staff.'

From observations it was evident that staff communicated with people who use the service in a friendly manner and provided them with support that met their needs.

19 April 2011

During a routine inspection

People and relatives told us that they were involved in their care and treatment. People felt that they were treated with respect and dignity. We observed people interacting with the staff. Staff listened to people and interacted with them with respect. A relative said: "staff treat people with respect and dignity".

Relatives said people had information about the service and they were happy for them to live at the home. We noticed from observation that staff communicated with the people before providing care. People could complain if they had a concern.

People we spoke to said they liked their bedrooms. We were told that people could bring personal items with them.

People felt that there were sufficient numbers of staff. However, people thought that that staff did not have appropriate supervision. They also thought that most of the staff were bank and this affected consistency of care. However, people told us that they had an opportunity to give their views about the quality of the service.

People told us that the meals provided were good. We were told by the people that their dietary and cultural needs were met by the meals provided at the home. People confirmed that they were consulted about the meals. They told us that they had drinks and jugs of water in their rooms. People said that staff were available to support them with their meals.

People felt that the home was clean. For example, one person commented: 'I like my room; my bedroom is always clean," and 'The home always smells fresh." The visitors also told us that whenever they visited they found bedrooms clean and tidy.

People felt that they knew how to make complaints if they were not satisfied with the service they were getting. One person said: "I had complained before and the issue was dealt with".

People were confident that their medication was given to them on time. They said they knew their medicines and why they were taking them. For example, one person said: 'I know the medicines I am taking'.