The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: London Cyrenians Housing - 40 Charleville Road

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

40 Charleville Road, London, W14 9JH (020) 7385 6711

Provided and run by:
London Cyrenians Housing Limited

All Inspections

19 May 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 19 May 2015 and was unannounced. The service is registered as a care home for up to nine people with mental ill-health. There were seven people in residence at the time of inspection.

The service is located in a tall, narrow building over five floors including the basement. There is a courtyard area to the rear. All bedrooms have a wash handbasin and some have an en-suite bathroom. There is a communal lounge and a separate quiet room, a shared kitchen and a laundry room. The office is situated on the ground floor at the front of the building.

A registered manager was 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.

On our inspection visit we found people were supported in a calm and stable environment by staff members who knew them well. People told us that it felt homely. Staff were respectful of each individual and worked alongside them to maintain their independence. A person who used the service told us that they could make their own decisions, but they could rely on staff to advise them if they were making a bad choice. We have made a recommendation about reviewing restrictions in place within the building and gaining people’s consent to them if they need to continue.

People were encouraged to engage in activities outside the service and to attend occasional social events organised within the service. They had the opportunity to air their views in keyworker and residents’ meetings, as well as a users’ forum run by the provider.

There were up-to-date assessments and support plans in place for everyone who used the service and there were good links with local healthcare providers, including mental health services.

We have made recommendations about keeping the availability of locum staff under review and maintaining soft furnishings and floor coverings in a way that maximises fire safety.

We found staff did not always refer to the most recent of the provider's policies and procedures and checks and audits were not picking up on all relevant quality issues, particularly omissions. In some areas there was a mismatch between what senior managers believed was in place within the service and what was actually happening in daily practice. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

27 June and 8 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to answer our five questions: Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well lead? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, speaking with relatives and speaking with the manager, the human resources officer and two members of the staff team. We also looked at records, policies and procedures. People using the service and their relatives spoke positively about the quality of the service. One person told us, "It feels like being at home here. Staff ask how we are and find out what we want, they put us first." A relative said, "I feel that [my relative] is well looked after by good and caring staff."

Is the service safe?

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The relevant staff were aware of the policies and procedures relating to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. No applications had been made at the time of our visit.

Staff were able to describe different types of abuse and how they would protect people from abuse.

People using the service were protected by thorough recruitment practices.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in their care planning and the service involved appropriate medical, health and social care professionals for assessing and reviewing people's needs. People annually attended a review meeting chaired by their social worker and their care was also reviewed by a multi-disciplinary medical, health and social care team at least once a year.

Is the service caring?

People using the service were spoken with in a respectful and polite manner. People and their relatives told us that the manager and the staff team were supportive, encouraging and kind.

Is the service responsive?

There were systems in place to seek people's views about the service and to respond to any concerns and complaints. People were offered opportunities to develop policies and procedures. They were provided with a wide range of easy to read information booklets, which informed them of their rights and entitlements.

Is the service well led?

The manager was experienced and knowledgeable. The service had systems in place to continuously monitor the quality of care and people using the service reported that the quality assurance processes took into account their views and experiences. There had not been any complaints but people said they believed the manager would respond to any complaints in a prompt and supportive manner.

11 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

In this report, the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location, at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

Improvements were made to record keeping since the provider's last inspection in July 2013. Following the last inspection, the provider submitted an action plan to address how they would meet the standard required of this outcome. During the follow up visit, we found they now had sufficient record keeping arrangements in place.

12 July 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location, at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People we spoke with said they liked living at the home and were able to choose what they wanted to do with their day.

Support plans and assessments were developed to address identified needs. However we found that there was not always an accurate record in respect of the care documentation we looked at. And although staff were able to describe how they would support people this was not always being documented in a consistent way in line with people's changing needs.

There was a medication policy and procedure and staff were found to be following the guidance. All medicines were safely given to people from a blister pack where medicines were organised by the times and days of the week.

There were sufficient staffing levels to meet people's needs during the day. However there was one sleep in staff member from 23:00 until 09:00. Staff said that during the sleep in shift it had been difficult for them to provide the necessary support to everyone in the home when one person had higher needs and therefore required more support. On call support was available if required.

4 July 2012

During a routine inspection

People who use the service spent their time doing what they wanted to do with the support from staff. Staff assisted them when needed, for example when cleaning their rooms or when needed reminders.

They were satisfied living at Charleville Road and felt their mental health was improving.

People who use the service organised and took notes at their resident meetings each month. They informed staff of and actions arising and felt listened to by staff.