The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: St Margaret's

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

84 West Heath Road, Hampstead, London, NW3 7UN (020) 8731 7737

Provided and run by:
London Borough of Camden

All Inspections

27 November 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27 November 2014. It was unannounced, which meant nobody at the service was told in advance of the inspection.

St Margaret’s is a residential care home owned and managed by the London Borough of Camden and situated in Barnet. The home provides accommodation for up to 44 older people. There were five units across two floors, however one unit was closed at the time of this inspection. At the time of our visit there were 28 people living at the home.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our visit, however a new manager had started in the week of our inspection, and was applying to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, registered managers 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.

We last inspected St Margaret’s in May 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the essential standards that we assessed.

At the current inspection people living at the home, their relatives and health and social care professionals gave us positive feedback about the home. However we found that people did not have a choice of food at mealtimes and some people did not have the support they needed to eat.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to keep people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff had training on abuse awareness and the provider responded appropriately to allegations of abuse. Systems were in place to ensure the home environment was maintained safely and medicines were administered appropriately.

Sufficient staff were available to meet people’s needs. Staff were appropriately qualified and trained to meet people’s needs. The service had a care assessment and planning process that recognised people’s individual needs and preferences. People’s individual risk assessments were up to date, and people were consulted about the care provided to them to ensure that this was sufficient. People’s ability to make decisions about their lives was assessed to ensure they had support when needed. Applications had been made for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards when needed to ensure that they were protected from being deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

We observed many positive staff interactions and clear communication between staff and people living at the home. The service had a complaints procedure that was accessed by people at the service. They were confident that appropriate action would be taken to resolve any issues raised.

We found that people’s health care needs were addressed. The provider’s had a system in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of services, with actions planned including support for staff and people living at the home over the forthcoming changes.

At this inspection there was one breach of regulations relating to food provision within the home. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

3 June 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

This inspection was carried out to assess what the provider had done in response to the action we had told them to take following our last inspection. This was in relation to the safe management of medicines.

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

We found the service was safe because people were protected against the risks associated with medicines. We found the provider had improved arrangements for the administration and recording of medicines. We found medicines were stored safely for the protection of people who used the service. We found that medication records were in good order, provided an account of medicines used and demonstrated that people received their medicines as prescribed. We found that that suitable arrangements were in place to identify and resolve any medication errors promptly.

24 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to check whether improvements had been made since our last inspection of the service in October 2013. At that inspection we found that records relating to people who use the service were not accurate or up to date.

At our inspection of the service on 24 January 2014 we found that the provider had made several improvements. Most records for people who use the service were accurate and up to date. We spoke with four staff who told us about the importance of good record keeping. Staff confirmed that they had discussed record keeping at staff meetings and supervision.

The Care Quality Commission had received information of concern about the arrangements for the handling of medicines. At our inspection we were concerned that people were not always receiving their medicines as prescribed and the provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor quality of medicines management.

27 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We previously inspected St Margaret's House on 23 November 2012 and found non-compliance in areas of staff support and notifications. We carried out a compliance review to check compliance against the action plan produced by the manager had been implemented. During this visit we found that the service had made some improvements. We noted that most staff had received regular supervision since our last visit in November 2012. This was confirmed by staff who told us they felt supported by the manager. Notifications of serious incidents, including safeguarding incidents had been submitted in accordance to CQC requirements.

There were appropriate measures in place to ensure the security of the premises through regular health and safety audits. We saw that the service had carried out the necessary maintenance following a notification from the fire safety regulator London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA). However, we were concerned about record keeping and staffing numbers at busier times.

We spoke with a group of people who told us they were generally happy living at the home. One person said, 'I think they (staff) look after us quite well.' Another person told us, 'I think they treat us pretty well on the whole.' All the people we spoke with said they felt safe. We also spoke with three relatives. A relative told us, 'I've had no complaints since the day (their relative) came here and we're here a lot.' Another relative told us that they were very pleased with the standard of care.

23 November 2012

During a routine inspection

There were 33 people in residence at the time of our visit and we spent most of the time talking to some, including their relatives for views about the service. Two of the three relatives we spoke with told us that staff were very good and helpful. They felt staff treated people with dignity and respect, and they spoke of staff as being 'very kind.'

People's privacy and dignity were respected in the manner staff spoke and interacted with them. We observed some positive interactions between staff and people who use the service. In all cases staff were caring and respectful. However, we observed in one unit that there was less staff interaction during the lunch time with staff more focused on the task in hand, which meant that the opportunity for positive interactions were not always taken full advantage of.

People were given a choice in the activities they wanted to participate in, including music therapy provided by a music therapist who was present on the day of our inspection.

There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse and that they received the care they needed. Systems were in place to monitor and to make improvements to the quality of care and support provided to people by the home. However, we were concerned that a notifiable incident had not been reported to the Commission in a timely manner.

28 September 2011

During a routine inspection

People who use the service that we spoke with said that they were happy at the home. Relatives and friends we spoke with were positive about the care their family members or friends were receiving. They had received information about the services offered and the well-being of their family members or friends and felt involved with decisions made.