• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Approach Lodge Limited - 2 Approach Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Approach Road, London, E2 9LY (020) 8981 2210

Provided and run by:
Approach Lodge Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

17 October 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 17 and 18 October 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because we needed to be sure that people living at the service would be available to speak with us. We told the deputy manager we would be returning on the second day. At the last comprehensive inspection in June 2015, the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found that the service continued to be ‘Good’.

Approach Lodge provides residential care and support for up to seven adults with mental health needs and/or with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection seven people were living in the service who all had mental health needs.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from abuse and were confident any concerns raised would be acted upon immediately.

People’s risks were managed safely and care plans contained appropriate and detailed risk management plans. The provider worked closely with health and social care professionals and ensured people had a review if their needs changed.

People who required support with their medicines received them safely from staff who had completed training in the safe handling and administration of medicines. Staff completed the appropriate records and these were checked and audited regularly to minimise medicines errors.

Staff received the training and supervision they needed to meet people’s needs and were knowledgeable about their jobs. They were also encouraged and supported to sign up for vocational qualifications in health and social care to aid their learning.

People had regular access to healthcare services and staff were aware when people’s health and medical appointments were due. Staff worked closely with other health and social care professionals, such as the community mental health team and we saw evidence that recommendations had been followed in communication records and people’s care plans.

People were supported to have a healthy and balanced diet, which took into account their preferences as well as their cultural, medical and nutritional needs.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff throughout the inspection. We saw that staff treated people with respect and kindness, respected their privacy and promoted their dignity and independence.

People were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. Care records were person centred and developed to meet people’s individual needs. There was evidence that language and cultural requirements were considered when carrying out the assessments and staff were able to communicate with people in their own language.

There was an accessible complaints procedure in place and people and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable raising issues with management. There was a daily meeting and an easy read survey in place to allow people the opportunity to feedback about the care and support they received.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and understand the experiences of people who used the service. The provider followed a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual cycle of quality assurance activities and learning took place from the result of the audits.

People and their relatives felt comfortable approaching the management team, who had a visible presence throughout the service. Staff spoke positively of the working environment and the support they received from management.

15 and 16 June 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 15 and 16 June 2015. At our previous inspection on the 14 May 2014 we found the provider was meeting regulations in relation to the outcomes we inspected. Approach Lodge is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide care and accommodation for up to seven men and women with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection two people had been admitted to a local hospital and there was also one vacancy.

There are seven single occupancy bedrooms equipped with en-suite facilities. There is a communal lounge, meeting room, kitchen and laundry room, and a small garden at the rear of the premises. The building comprises three storeys and does not have a passenger lift.

There was a registered manager in post, who had worked at the service for several years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had received training about how to protect people from abuse and demonstrated their knowledge of how to report any safeguarding concerns.

The care plans we looked at contained risk assessments, which showed that any risks to people’s safety and welfare had been assessed and planned for. There were enough staff available to support people using the service, including support to attend appointments and take part in community activities.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Staff had received medicines training and were knowledgeable about the medicines that people were prescribed.

There was a robust recruitment system in place and all staff had completed an induction. Staff had regular supervision and training, including training about how to support people with mental health problems. This meant that people received care and support from staff with appropriate knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report upon our findings. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is regarded as necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, to protect themselves or others. We saw that staff understood the provider’s policy and could explain how they protected people’s rights.

People had positive relationships with staff, who spoke with them in a caring and encouraging manner. Relatives, and health and social care professionals, described staff as being kind and respectful towards people. People’s privacy was maintained, for example staff asked people if they were happy to speak with us and show us their bedrooms.

People using the service told us they were happy with their care and we received positive remarks from their families. Care plans reflected people’s needs as identified at their Care Planning Approach meetings, and were regularly reviewed and up to date. People were actively supported to participate with the planning and reviewing of their goals, and relatives told us they were consulted about their family member’s care and support. People accessed community medical and healthcare facilities and staff accompanied them to appointments if necessary.

The registered manager was aware of how to respond to a complaint if required. People and their relatives told us they had been provided with information about how to make a complaint. They told us that the service was well managed and the registered manager was described as “approachable” and “totally committed.”

14 May 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we were able to speak with four staff and four people who used the service. We gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led.

We found the service was caring. People we spoke with about the care provided told us they felt the care at this home was good. We read three care plans and saw the provider ensured risks were assessed and that associated health and social care professional were referred to appropriately.

We saw the service was able to respond to changes of circumstance with procedures. We found the provider was able to respond appropriately and moderate its service accordingly.

The service was effective. We saw in people's records how staff interacted well with people and assisted them to reach their individual goals.

We found the service was safe. People we spoke with told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported.

The service was well led. The management team worked well with staff and people who used the service. People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected. The provider had systems in place that ensured the service was always being reviewed with the aim of continued improvement.

26 July 2013

During a routine inspection

There were six people using the service at the time of our visit. We spoke briefly with one person who was going out for the day and another person said a quick hello before going away for the weekend. Other people using the service did not wish to speak with us on this occasion. However, we observed how people and staff interacted and all of these communications were appropriate and respectful. It was evident that people felt able to approach staff.

The person who spoke with us had moved into the home shortly before our inspection in 2012. This person said they felt 'really settled' in the home and was 'happy' to be living there.

The home provided practical support to help people develop their skills so that they could live independently in the community. The care plans followed a principle called "My Life", focusing on putting each person at the centre of their own care and rehabilitation programme.

Medicines were safely stored and the medication administration records were up to date and accurate.

Two support workers who spoke with us said they felt that the staff group supported each other and worked well as a team. When we asked about the opportunities that were available for training we were told that the provider had a clear commitment to ensuring that staff were trained and supported in their work.

The service had received no complaints since November 2008.

17 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one person and saw how service users and staff members interacted. From this it was evident that people felt able to approach staff to ask questions or to engage in other conversations.

The person who spoke with us told us they had settled into the home well since they arrived a few months ago. This person said that they knew their keyworker and felt comfortable about talking with any member of the staff team. They said they believed that their support needs were being met.

We found that the home helped people in a positive way to maintain their mental health and wellbeing. Staff were aware of the needs of people who suffer from a mental health difficulties and worked in a way that promoted mental health and independence.

26 July 2011

During a routine inspection

One person spoke with us and made passing comments, all of a complimentary nature about their home and the staff who work with them. We asked people at each visit if they would like to speak with us in private, no one wished to. We did, however, let people know that they are welcome to contact us at any time if they have comments to make or have any concerns.