• Residential substance misuse service

Archived: Walm Lane Nursing Home

141 Walm Lane, London, NW2 3AU

Provided and run by:
Ibexbrook Limited

All Inspections

23 September 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this responsive inspection following a concern we received that the home had been sold and planned to close. We did not receive satisfactorily information that people who used the service were appropriately consulted and had received sufficient information about the planned closure. We had also received information that staffing levels were not sufficient in meeting people's needs.

People who used the service told us during our inspection on 23 September 2014 that they had been verbally told by the registered manager that the home had been sold and the service will be closing, however people were not clear when the home will be closed. People also told us that some local authorities had already made contact with them to assess and arrange new placements.

People had a lot of praise for staff working at the home. Comments made included "Staff are excellent", "Brilliant", "Caring" or "Without their help I wouldn't be as well as I am now." People also told us that "Staff are always available" and "there are enough staff around".

19 June 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

We observed the care provided and the interaction between staff and people who used the service. We spoke with eight people, five care staff and one relative of a person who used the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. We observed that staff were supervising people to ensure they were safe. People were treated with respect and dignity. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Care records contained risk assessments which provided guidance to staff on action to take to keep people safe. However, we found that although the home had relevant policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards ( DoLS), their requirements had not been applied in the case of two individuals receiving care from the provider. We saw a number of restrictions for both people which could amount to a deprivation of liberty. This had not been recognised by staff and no action had been taken to refer the people to the local authority for an assessment so their rights were safeguarded.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People's likes and dislikes were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of these. People's care plans contained assessments and up to date plans of care with details of routines and the type of care to be provided. Where risks had been identified measures were in place to minimise the risk.

Is the service caring?

People told us that staff were pleasant and took good care of them. One person told us, 'I'm happy here. The food is very nice and staff are brilliant.' We observed that people who used the service were well cared for. We saw staff attending to people, and people were able to approach staff freely and came to them when they needed help. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and their diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We observed that staff were attentive towards people and when people needed help or attention, staff responded immediately. We saw that the provider had responded positively to feedback from other stakeholders, however one person told us that the service's responsiveness could be improved. They said 'There's a tendency to be told what to do here, and not to listen.'

Is the service well-led?

The home had a registered manager who was knowledgeable about their role and responsibilities. There were arrangements in place for monitoring the quality of care provided. Records showed that any identified shortfalls were addressed in a timely manner. For example, the provider responded to stakeholder feedback by implementing good financial management strategies in order to reduce potential for abuse.

18 October 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment delivered in line with their individual plan of care. We saw that staff interacted with people in a friendly manner. A relative told us, 'the visible signs to me are that he [the person receiving care] is happy'. People who used the service told us that they had been well cared for.

Care staff could provide examples of what constituted abuse and knew how to respond to allegations or incidents of abuse. However, we noted that the arrangements for safeguarding people from financial abuse were not satisfactory and this placed people at risk.

The home had a clear audit trail for ordering, receipt, administration and disposal of medicines. Medicines were prescribed, handled and given to people appropriately.

We reviewed the records of some people who used the service. These all contained detailed information relating to people's care and treatment.

However, other records could not be accessed in a timely manner when needed. Some financial records we wanted to see could not be accessed promptly.

24 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who commended the service for supporting their choices and respecting their privacy and dignity. One person told us, 'staff knock on the door if they wanted to have a chat with you' and another said, 'l look after my finances and l go out to do my own shopping".

People were content with the care and support that they received, which they regarded as effective and safe. Comments included, 'the service is excellent', 'I have not come across any problem that staff were not able to resolve' and 'staff look after us very well'.

People were supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration. Appropriate guidance was followed where there was any risk of poor nutrition. We saw that people at risk of losing weight were regularly monitored. People told us 'the food is nice' and another said 'during the night, if l want a toast or anything l just go downstairs and staff will make something for me.'

Staff demonstrated that they understood aspects of safeguarding process relevant to their role. They told us they were well supported by the management and were aware of their limitations but confident to approach managers when they needed to.

The environment was suitably designed and well maintained.

1 March 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were 'happy and comfortable' and the home was described as 'excellent' or 'really nice' by many people. Staff were said to be 'caring' and 'easy to get on with'. People said their privacy and dignity was respected by staff. We saw that people were given choices and their wishes were respected. Several people told us they felt 'very safe' in the home and no one had any complaints they wished to raise. One person said, 'here I have a future', which was typical of the views expressed to us.