We carried out a review of the data available to us about Support for Living Limited - 62 Rosemont Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Support for Living Limited - 62 Rosemont Road, you can give feedback on this service.
Support for Living Limited - 62 Rosemont Road is a care home that is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to three people, who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection three people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service:
A relative and a health care professional described staff as caring. Staff demonstrated they had a good understanding of people living at the home.
People received person centred care. They had individualised care plans that stated how they wanted their care provided. These contained background information to support staff to understand them in the context of their life.
There had been some changes to the staff team. Whilst agency staff who were familiar with the service were used, both staff and relatives felt the service would benefit from more permanent staff. The registered manager assessed staffing needs and was in the process of recruiting staff into vacant posts.
Staff received medicines training and refreshers to help ensure that people received their medicines in a safe manner.
The registered manager monitored incidents, accidents and daily records to ensure all safeguarding concerns were identified. Staff demonstrated they knew how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
Staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and demonstrated they gave people choice and offered people their known preferences. The registered manager had applied for authorisations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) on behalf of people.
Staff had received induction training prior to commencing their post and subsequent refresher training after this.
Staff worked with health professionals to help ensure the best health outcomes for people.
There were checks and audits to help ensure the quality of the service people received. The registered manager had identified specific staff to be “champions,” of areas that included, nutrition and health and exercise and environment to improve people’s engagement and well-being.
Rating at last inspection: At the last comprehensive inspection on 27 September 2016 all the key questions were rated good and therefore the overall rating was good.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on previous rating of good.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service and will re-inspect based on the rating of good. We may re-inspect earlier if we receive concerns about the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Support for Living - 62 Rosemont Road is a supported living service that provides care to three people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the service. The provider is Certitude, which has a number of supported living homes in London providing support for people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health needs.
The registered manager had recently left and the deputy manager was managing the service with support from the service manager. At the time of the inspection, a new manager had been appointed and was due to start the following week. After they started, we saw that they made an application to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager of 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.
Appraisals were not up to date and team meetings were not held consistently but staff generally felt supported by the deputy manager and the new manager had begun to schedule dates for appraisals and team meetings.
There were procedures in place to safeguard people, staff knew how to respond if they suspected abuse, there were enough staff to support people using the service and risk assessments minimised harm to people using the service.
There were a number of regular maintenance and service checks carried out to ensure the environment was safe. Medicines were administered and stored safely.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and were able to have food and drinks when they wanted to.
People had access health care services and the service worked with other community based agencies.
We observed staff were kind, people’s dignity and privacy was respected and staff were able to give a good account of people’s individual needs and preferences.
An appropriate complaints procedure was available.
Relatives and staff indicated they could speak to the deputy manager about concerns.
During our inspection in January 2013 we found that appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were not being maintained, arrangements for medicines management were not always effective and some systems for quality monitoring were not effective. During this inspection we found that the provider had made the necessary improvements to address these shortfalls.
We observed that staff talked to people before providing care and support so people knew what was happening. All interactions we observed were positive and we saw that staff had a good understanding of people's care needs and how best to support them.
People's needs were assessed and care was planned to meet their needs, choices and preferences.
Prior to commencing work the provider ensured that all required checks on staff were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who use the service.
Arrangements were not in place to ensure that an appropriate standard of cleanliness and hygiene was being maintained.
Arrangements were in place for the management of medicines but these were not effective and robust. The home was being appropriately staffed to meet people's needs.
The provider did have in place some systems for quality monitoring, however these were not always effective in identifying risks to people who used the service.
A complaints procedure was in place and the relative we spoke with said they were confident to raise any concerns and that they would be addressed.
We saw that people's needs are assessed and recorded so that the staff team know how to support them safely and appropriately.
We observed that people using the service have opportunities to make choices about what they do in their lives and we saw that staff were aware of what people like and dislike. We saw that staff were able to support people with these choices as they understood the different ways people communicate.
We saw that people were supported by staff to go out into the community and meet other people.
People also spend time with others in social clubs and attend day centres which encourages them to develop skills and learn new activities.