The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Mi Casa

15 Duckett Road, London, N4 1BJ (020) 8340 2447

Provided and run by:
Precious Homes Limited

All Inspections

01/05/2014

During a routine inspection

MI CASA provides accommodation, personal care and support for up to three people with learning disabilities and associated challenging needs, including autistic spectrum disorder. When we visited, three people were living in the home. The home is run by Precious Homes Ltd.

People told us they felt well cared for and safe living at the home. Their comments included “I like my house it’s good” and “I like all my staff they are nice.”  We found staff recruitment practices were safe and that relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home. Staff had the training and knowledge they needed to make sure people living in the home were cared for safely.  The care records we looked at demonstrated that people had access to external health care professionals’ support as required.  We found the arrangements for the management of medicines were safe.

We saw all communal parts of the home and some people’s bedrooms (with their permission) and found the premises and equipment were safe and well maintained. The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service.

The service had a registered manager. She provided strong leadership and people using the service, their parents, care staff, health and social care professionals told us the manager promoted good standards of care. However, one parent told us whenever they tried to talk in relation to the care of their relative with the senior member of staff they found them uncooperative.

All the people we spoke with told us staff always asked them what they wanted to do before they received support with their care or treatment.  We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).  However, the majority of people who needed an assessment of their mental capacity had not received one in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) Code of Practice, to assess their capacity to make specific decisions about their care and treatment. The problem we found breached one health and social care regulations (Regulation 18). You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

29, 30 May 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited Mi Casa over two days. On the first day, we visited with an expert-by-experience (someone who had experiences of using or caring for someone who used services). We met the three people who lived at Mi Casa. We spoke with one person and observed care being given to one person. We spoke with two care staff, the team leader and the registered manager. We spoke with one relative. One person told us 'I like it here'.

We looked at three care plans. We saw people were given care which reflected their needs. Their care plans stated their preferences and choices. People used pictures to help them choose between activities and menus.

When we visited there was redecoration work being carried out. One person who was having their room redecorated told us they had chosen the way it was being decorated.

We checked the kitchen and meal options as well as the food people had chosen to eat. We found that a variety of food was available and people made choices about what they wanted to eat.

We looked around Mi Casa and found it was clean. Most care workers had had training on food preparation and infection control.

We found there were some ways that people could give their views about their care. There were residents' meetings and people met with their keyworkers regularly. We saw there were internal and external checks on the standards of care in the home and that when issues were raised, the provider had responded.

22 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

On the day we visited Mi Casa we met with two of the people living at the home. We observed the care they were receiving and spoke with one of them. The person we spoke with did not raise any concerns with us about the support they were receiving. We spoke with three members of staff.

This inspection was undertaken to check the progress Mi Casa had made since our inspection of 08 November 2012, when we found appropriate arrangements were not in place and being used in relation to the recording and distribution of medicine. This time we found that the provider was meeting this standard.

8 November 2012

During a routine inspection

When we visited the home there were three people living at the home. One of the people using the service was at a day centre on the day of our visit.

We spoke with one person who was living at the home. They told us that they liked living at the home and that the staff were 'friendly and helpful'. They told us that they liked to do 'their own thing' during the day, but if they needed help they would get it.

We observed the care that the staff were giving. We saw that staff were respectful and friendly to the people using the service. Staff supported people when they wanted to go out.

There was evidence that people or their relatives were involved in planning their care and we saw evidence that people had their needs assessed and that their care was being delivered in a way that met these.

When we checked the medication records for people using the service, we found that the recorded amounts of medication used did not match the actual amounts remaining. This meant we could not be sure all medications had been given to people.

3 May 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us they were involved in their care planning, and were usually consulted about their needs. They described how they were able to take part in activities with staff support to help them to maintain and develop their independence and that they took part in their preferred activities. People were generally positive about the home, manager and staff at Mi Casa. However they informed that at times some of the support staff could be more responsive to their needs and spend less time in the office. One person said, 'We understand that they are busy and have things to do and write, but some of the staff need to spend time more time with us'.