The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Laglin Lodge

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

7 Eardley Road, Streatham, London, SW16 6DA (020) 8696 9046

Provided and run by:
Mrs P E Modile

All Inspections

2 July 2015 and 9 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 2 and 9 July 2015. The first day of the inspection was unannounced; the provider knew that we would be returning for a second day. The provider met the requirements of the regulations we inspected when the service was last inspected on 3 February 2013.

Laglin Lodge provides accommodation for up to five people with a mental health diagnosis. It is located in Streatham and is close to local amenities and transport links. At the time of our inspection, there were three people living at the service. The home is arranged over three floors. People live in single bedrooms, some of which are ensuite. There is a shared kitchen and lounge. A conservatory is available for people who smoke.

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 told us that staff treated them kindly and they were happy with the food they received at the home. They told us they received their medicines on time.

We found that people led independent lives and were not restricted from leaving the service. Staff supported them to maintain their independence by offering them help with aspects of their daily living such as laundry, cooking and maintaining their bedrooms.

People told us that they did not have any complaints, however the provider had not taken steps to ensure people’s voices were heard. For example, key worker meetings and residents meetings did not take place regularly.

We found that care plans were lacking in sufficient detail. Risk assessments did not always identify steps that staff could take to manage identified risks. Support plans were not always evaluated and there was a lack of goal monitoring.

Although staff told us they felt supported, they did not receive training or supervision to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. Training records were difficult to locate and the ones that we saw had expired.

We found breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, medicines, staffing, person centred care, and good governance. You can see the action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We have made some recommendations about how people are supported to raise concerns.

3 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Laglin Lodge to check whether improvements had been made following previous concerns around the management of medication. We found that the service was now managing medicines safely.

We spoke with two staff during our inspection, they confirmed they had received medication training recently by a pharmacist. One staff said "he told us how to use the blister packs and how to record it". Another staff told us "we do weekly medication audits".

We reviewed records of medicines received, administered, and disposed of, and saw that these were accurate, completed fully and up to date.

19, 30 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people using the service. They told us they understood their care plans. One person told us "we sat down and talked about the care plan" and "I signed it". People also told us that they liked living at the home. Some of the comments included "they (staff) asked me about the care plan" and "this is my house".

Appropriate arrangements were not in place for the recording and administration of medicines. The provider told us that staff had not received training in the use of blister packed medicines. The provider told us that they had appointed a member of staff to carry out medicines audits, and although we saw evidence that these audits were being carried out, the audits had not been effective in picking up and addressing issues with medicines.

The complaints procedure was on display at the home and the manager had introduced a complaints book and an incident book to the home. The manager told us that people were asked if they had any concerns during care plan reviews.

20 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people using the service and they told us they enjoyed living at the home. One person told us "I am happy here". One relative told us they were able to visit the home and make a choice about the home before their family member moved in.

We saw evidence of training certificates for staff which showed they had attended safeguarding training recently. Staff were aware of the different types of abuse and how to identify these. One person using the service told us "I feel safe here". One relative told us their family member was "well looked after".

One of the risk assessments had not been signed by the person using the service or an advocate. Another care plan did not have a risk assessment completed and another had a risk assessment that was dated over two years ago. We did not see a recent risk assessment completed for a particular person using the service.

The provider did not have a safe method for recording out of date medication. One person's medication had expired in October 2012 and the medication was still being dispensed in November 2012.

We saw seven staff records and saw evidence of supervision meetings and that 1-2-1 had taken place every four to six months.

The provider had a complaints policy, however this was not on display in any of the communal areas of the home. There was no complaints folder at the home. One relative told us "I am not sure how to raise a complaint, not sure of the procedure".

10 November 2011

During a routine inspection

The people we spoke to said they liked the staff, and found them friendly and approachable. The people we spoke to said they liked living in the home. They said that although they could get bored, they could go out when they wanted to. The people we spoke to said they felt safe in the home and would talk to staff if they had any concerns.

However, although the people living in the home said they were satisfied with the service, we identified concerns with some of the practices in the home that may put the people living there at risk.