• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Mrs Delores Matadeen - Beeches Road Also known as Lyndel Homes

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

98 Beeches Road, West Bromwich, West Midlands, B70 6HJ (0121) 580 0759

Provided and run by:
Mrs Delores Matadeen

All Inspections

27 October 2016

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 26 October 2016. At our last inspection on 2 February 2015, we found the provider’s environmental risk assessments for the premises and the protocols for administering medicine on an ‘as required’ basis required improvement. At this inspection we found there had been an improvement.

The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to a maximum of nine people who have a mental health condition or associated need. On the day of our inspection seven people lived at the home.

The provider was also the registered manager and was present during our visit. 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.

People told us that they were safe living at the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of harm. Risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately to ensure care and support was provided safely. Staff had been recruited appropriately and pre-employment checks had been completed. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff told us that they were given the opportunity to develop their knowledge and skills in order to carry out their roles effectively. Staff received a planned induction before they started to work unsupervised and felt supported when they started to work at the home. People were supported by staff that understood the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider knew what appropriate action should be taken to protect people’s legal rights. People told us that they had enough to eat and drink and were complimentary about the choice and quality of food available to them. People told us that they were involved in accessing health care professionals to maintain their health and general well-being.

People were supported by kind and caring staff and were involved in making decisions in all aspects of their lives. People told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect. Staff described examples of how they promoted independence and maintained confidentiality when supporting people.

People's care and support was planned around their individual preferences. People were supported by staff who knew them well and supported them to make decisions about their care and support. People, where they chose to, were supported to participate in activities that interested them. A complaints procedure was in place and people felt confident to raise any concerns.

People and staff were happy with how the service was managed. People were given opportunities to express their opinions on the service that was provided. Staff felt valued and well-supported by the provider and care home manager. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the care and support provided to people.

2 February 2015

During a routine inspection

Our inspection was unannounced and took place on 2 February 2015.

The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to a maximum of nine people who have a mental health condition or associated need. On the day of our inspection seven people lived there.

At our last inspection in June 2013 the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.

The provider was also the registered manager. 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.

Some aspects of medicine record keeping had not been utilised to ensure safety. There were no plans available to instruct staff when ‘as required’ medicine should be given. We also found that where medicine records had been handwritten there was no countersigning to confirm their accuracy.

Not all areas of environmental risk were assessed which potentially could increase the risk of people self-harming and injury.

We saw that there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. People told us that they had not experienced any bad treatment or abuse. Staff confirmed that they would not tolerate abusive practice and knew who they should report to if they had a concern.

The provider had a suitable, safe system in place to recruit new staff. Staff received an induction to give them the initial knowledge and support they required to meet people’s needs. Staff numbers and experience ensured that people would be safe and their needs were met in the way that they wanted them to be.

Staff received one to one supervision to equip them with the knowledge and support they needed to provide appropriate care the people who lived there. Staff we spoke with understood their job role and responsibilities.

People told us that the staff were lovely and kind and we saw that they were. We observed that interactions between staff and the people who lived there were positive in that staff were attentive, polite and helpful to people.

Records highlighted and people confirmed that they were monitored, treated and supported by a range of external health and social care professionals. This promoted their health and well being.

Most staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that the provider/registered manager was meeting the requirements set out in the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people received care in line with their best interests and were not unlawfully restricted.

All of the people we spoke with told us that they liked the food and drink that they were offered. Records confirmed that the people who lived there were supported to have a varied diet in sufficient quantities.

We found that people engaged in the recreational pursuits that they preferred and enjoyed both in the home and in the wider community.

We found that a complaints system was available for people to use. This meant that people and their relatives could state their concerns and dissatisfaction and any issues would be looked into.

People told us that the service was well led. We saw that the provider/registered manager had an auditing system in place to ensure that the service was safe and met people’s individual needs and preferences.