You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 October 2015

This inspection took place on 26 August 2015 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service since its new registration with the CQC.

229 Mitcham Lane is a small care home providing accommodation for four African/Caribbean men with long term mental health problems. It is located in Streatham, South-West London. It is close to local amenities and has good transport links. It is one of four homes run by the provider.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 using the service live in a single bedroom and share lounge, kitchen and bathroom facilities.

People using the service told us they liked living at the home and were not restricted from leaving the service. They told us they were able to approach staff, including the registered manager if they had any problems. Although there were no structured activities in place, people said they were free to do the things they liked. They told us they helped staff to prepare meals and received their medicines on time. Regular resident meetings were held which were often chaired by people. People’s concerns and complaints were explored during one to one sessions and during resident meetings. The provider followed up on issues to ensure they were resolved to people/s satisfaction.

Staff told us they worked well together as a team and the registered manager was supportive. They received regular training and supervision. They demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. They were familiar with people’s needs.

Care records, including risk assessments and support plans were reviewed regularly which helped to ensure they contained accurate information. Support plans were discussed with people using the service and their input was considered during reviews.

Regular audits took place of medicines, financial records and the environment. The director carried out regular visits to the service which helped to ensure there was good oversight of the service and to ensure that improvements were made where required.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 October 2015

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe and staff were familiar with safeguarding procedures and had received safeguarding training.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and no bank or agency staff were used, which meant that people were supported by staff who were familiar to them.

People told us they received their medicines on time.

Risk assessments for people and the environment were carried out which meant that potential risks could be mitigated against.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 October 2015

The service was effective. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to help ensure that people’s rights were protected.

Staff received regular training and supervision.

People’s ongoing healthcare needs were met by the provider and they were able to access community healthcare services.

People’s nutritional needs were met by the provider.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 October 2015

The service was caring. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Staff were familiar with people’s preferences and people told us their privacy and dignity were respected.

We observed staff speaking to people in a caring manner.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 October 2015

The service was responsive. People’s needs were assessed before they came to use the service.

Care plans were individual to people and were reviewed regularly to ensure they met people’s needs.

People were able to access activities of their choice.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns and were given opportunities to do so via one to one and group meetings.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 October 2015

The service was well-led. People told us the registered manager was approachable and listened to them.

Audits on medicines, financial records and environmental safety were completed and action taken to address any shortfalls identified.

Feedback was sought from healthcare professionals.