• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Tentelow Lane

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

137b Tentelow Lane, Southall, Middlesex, UB2 4LW (020) 8893 6634

Provided and run by:
Voyage 1 Limited

All Inspections

14 April 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 14 April 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection of the service took place on 1 April 2014 where we found no breaches of Regulation.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to four adults who have a learning disability. The provider owns and manages the next door property which is also a registered care home for four adults who have a learning disability. Although both homes are registered independently, the properties were joined by a connecting internal door and both services were run as one home with people from both houses sharing facilities, staffing, activities and meals. There were four people living in each of the homes.

There was a registered manager was in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they liked living at the home and were happy there. Some of the things they said were, ‘’this house is fantastic’’, ‘’I am in the best place’’ and ‘’I am very happy here now.’’ One person told us the home and the support they received ‘’made them happy’’.

The staff told us they were well supported and enjoyed working there. They told us they cared about the people they supported and had good relationships with them.

There were procedures designed to safeguard people and the staff were aware of these. They had received relevant training and information. Risks to people’s wellbeing and safety had been identified, assessed and appropriately managed. People received their medicines in a safe way to meet their needs. There were sufficient staff employed and the provider had checked their suitability to work with vulnerable people.

The staff had the support, information and training they needed to care for people safely.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to make sure registered providers are acting within their legal responsibilities. The provider had assessed people’s capacity to consent. People had consented to their care. The provider had made applications in accordance with their legal responsibilities.

People were given the support they needed to stay healthy and see other healthcare professionals as needed. They had a varied and nutritious diet.

The service was caring. People who lived at the home and the staff had positive relationships. People trusted the staff and thought they were kind and caring. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. The staff met people’s diverse needs, making sure they could access services, could communicate their needs and follow their chosen religion and culture.

People had their needs assessed, recorded and regularly reviewed. There were care plans and support guidelines which explained how the staff should support people to meet their needs. People living at the home took part in a wide range of activities both in the home and in the community. They learnt new skills and were involved in shopping, cooking and cleaning at the home.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure and people knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns.

There was a registered manager who had worked at the home since it opened and knew the service well. People living there and the staff felt happy and involved in planning how the service was managed.

There were appropriate systems to monitor the quality of the service. These included asking people living at the home, staff and other stakeholders for their views. The staff and manager reviewed and analysed incidents, learning from these and managing the risks to people in a safe and positive way.

1 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in a way which met their individual needs. There were enough staff employed and they were suitably trained and supported. People's individual needs had been assessed and were regularly reviewed. They took part in a range of different activities which met theses needs. The staff knew how to care for people and made sure they involved each person in making choices about the things that they did. The environment was well maintained and there were regular checks on the safety of the home. People were supported to take their medicines in a safe way. People knew who to speak to if they were unhappy about anything. People told us that they felt safe and well cared for.

Is the service effective?

People's individual needs were met. They told us that they were happy and well cared for. They said that the staff knew them well and were kind and respectful. One person told us, 'this home is brilliant ' I am very happy here'. People told us that they had opportunities to learn new skills and had access to a range of opportunities. One person told us that the staff were supporting them with road safety. Another person said that they were learning how to prepare meals. They said that they were supported to stay healthy.

Is the service caring?

People told us that the staff were kind and caring. We saw that the staff offered people choices and treated them with respect. Each person had a care plan outlining their individual needs and there were systems to make sure these were followed. People told us that the staff looked after them to make sure they were happy, healthy and well fed. People looked comfortable and well cared for. The home was well maintained and people had access to the things that they wanted and needed. One person showed us a new television, new clothes and new furniture which the staff had helped them purchase for their bedroom. People told us that the staff celebrated their birthdays and helped them to keep in contact with friends and family.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were reassessed on a regular basis and they were involved in planning their own care. These needs had been recorded in care plans and we saw these had been followed. Where people had become unwell or there had been a change in their needs ' this had been recorded and acted upon. People had the right medicines to stay healthy and saw healthcare professionals whenever they needed. People living at the home and other stakeholders were asked for their opinions on the service and these were listened to.

Is the service well-led?

There were good systems for monitoring the quality of the service. Where problems had been identified these had been put right. The manager was experienced and knew the service well. He and the staff team reflected on the work they did and whether things worked well or not. The staff team told us that they felt supported. People living at the home felt confident that the service was well managed.

7 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we were unable to speak with the people who use the service as they were all out. Therefore we contacted some of the relatives of the people who use the service. We spoke with two relatives. We also spoke with two staff who worked at the service.

The relatives told us that people received appropriate care and support from the staff. They said that people led active lives and were provided with food and meals that they enjoyed. Relatives told us they were kept informed about their relative and any changes in their needs. They said they were able to contact their relative and visit the service when they wanted.

Staff received support and training in their work and the staff we spoke with said they generally felt supported in their work.

The systems for the management of medicines ensured that they were administered safely, however the temperature of the room where the medicines were stored sometimes reached above the recommended limit for the storage of medicines.

At the time of our inspection the staffing levels meant that people's needs could be met by the service.

8 September 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke to two people who use the service. They told us that they got good support from the staff and that they could lead the lives they wanted to.

People told us about the different activities they got involved in at the service, such as going shopping, a recent holiday, and one person told us they had been swimming that morning. We saw people planning with staff the afternoon shopping trip, which shops they wanted to go to and how they would get there.

However, we found that people who use the service were put at risk because appropriate checks were not carried out on staff prior to their starting work at the home. People were also put at risk where Criminal Records Bureau checks had not been carried out on staff for a number of years.