Archived: Elmgrove House

Elmgrove House is managed by Notting Hill Housing and provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

People using the service lived in one of 14 bedsits in a purpose-built, three-storey building in Hammersmith. Each floor contained a shared kitchen and lounge which were also used for activities. Not everyone using Elmgrove House receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people using the service including one person who was in hospital, of which eight people received the regulated activity of personal care.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since April 2017 and registered since August 2017. 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 had care plans which were developed in line with their needs and reviewed regularly. Care plans were used to draw up clear schedules for care workers each day which were checked during handover to ensure people had the right care. There were systems agreed with the local authority to vary people’s hours on a weekly basis to meet their changing needs.

There were varied and interesting activity groups and people usually chose to eat together in a communal dining room. People received support to get enough to eat and drink and staff took action when people were at risk of weight loss or malnutrition.

The provider was meeting its responsibilities to obtain consent to care and assess people’s capacity to make decisions. Where relatives consented on behalf of people there was evidence that they had the authority to do so. Complaints were addressed by managers who had systems to respond promptly to straightforward concerns. People were positive about the caring and kind nature of staff and we saw examples of people given reassurance and staff tending promptly to concerns.

The provider had risk management plans in place, for example to address falls and promptly sought medical attention when people were unwell. Staff were recruited in line with safer recruitment processes and an interview process that checked that they had the right understanding of their roles. Staff received appropriate training and supervision to carry out their roles. There were processes to safeguard people from abuse, and medicines were safely managed. When things had gone wrong the provider took action, including discussing what had been learned and how problems could be avoided in future.

The provider told us they intended to merge with another provider later in the year. This means that this location will be archived at this time and registered under the new, merged provider. We will aim to return to this service within 12 months of registration.

People were involved in planning the care and support they received. Consent was sought prior to care being given. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 with advice available from the local authority and provider. Safeguarding concerns were managed appropriately and people were protected from the risk of abuse.

There were sufficient staff on duty during the day and night with support from the provider's management team. Staff were provided with training so that they could meet people's needs. There were systems for managing complaints and people were encouraged to give their feedback about the service and raise concerns with staff. There had been no formal complaints in the last 12 months.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time. The provider will rectify this.