Archived: London Mental Health Centre

At the previous inspection on 23 April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People continued to be protected against harm and abuse because staff received on-going safeguarding training. Staff were able to identify the different types of abuse and how these may manifest in people’s behaviour. Identified risks were documented in comprehensive risk assessments which gave staff guidance on how to safely support people. Risks were monitored to minimise the risk of repeat incidents.

People’s medicine continued to be managed safely. The service had robust systems in place to ensure people’s medicines were stored, administered and recorded in line with good practice. People confirmed staff supported them to receive their medicines as prescribed.

The service maintained a core staff team enabling a consistent approach for people. Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people’s needs were met safely. Staff received on-going training and put their knowledge into practice. Staff received support and guidance from the registered manager and reflected on their working practices through regular supervisions and annual appraisals.

People’s care was delivered in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff sought people’s consent to care and treatment and respected their decisions. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People received support to ensure their dietary and nutritional needs were met in line with guidance from healthcare professionals. We received mixed feedback about the quality of food provided, this was raised with the registered manager and we were satisfied with their explanation. People’s health and wellbeing was monitored by staff and where deterioration in their mental health was identified, the appropriate healthcare professionals were contacted in a timely manner.

The service continued to encourage people to make decisions about their care. The service had an embedded culture of supporting people to maintain and where possible enhance their independence. Staff were aware of the importance of integration and supported people to access the local community without direct support when assessed.

People received support that was person centred and care plans were devised with their input. Care plans were regularly reviewed to reflect people’s changing needs and guidance from healthcare professionals was documented and encompassed in people’s care plans. People were not always aware of how to raise a complain, however the service encouraged people to share their views and complaints were monitored to minimise the risk of repeat incidents.

The registered manager was an active presence within the service. People found the registered manager approachable and told us he responded to their requests in a timely manner. The registered manager undertook audits of the service to drive improvement. Issues identified in the audits were acted on in a timely manner.

People were supported to be independent. They were aware of the care and treatment choices available to them and were involved in making decisions about their care.

People's care was individualised and addressed their physical, mental, social and financial support needs.

There was suitable and nutritious food available. People were able to request their favourite foods and were supported to make meals. People were able to access food and drinks throughout the day.

There were appropriate recruitment and selection processes in place. We saw that the appropriate checks had been undertaken prior to people starting work. There was an induction process in place to support new staff.

There were processes in place to monitor the quality of service provision. The service obtained the views of people using the service through satisfaction surveys and regular resident's meetings. We saw that suggestions from the resident's meetings had been introduced to the service.

People confirmed that they had allocated key workers, and that they met with them regularly. One person told us, "I can talk to [my key worker] about anything I want".

We observed that staff sought consent from people when it was appropriate to do so. For example, people's plans of care were discussed with them and they signed in agreement to them.

People using the service that we spoke with told us they felt able to raise concerns in the home and that they were listened to when they did.

Our last inspection on 01 December 2011 found that staff training (including safeguarding training), supervision and appraisal records indicated that staff had not received up to date training and / or regular supervision and appraisal. When we inspected the service on 24 January 2013, we found that staff supervision and appraisals were up to date, and staff training was mostly up to date. Safeguarding training was up to date.