The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Merchiston House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Colham Road, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB8 3RD (01895) 235920

Provided and run by:
The London Borough of Hillingdon

All Inspections

29 May 2015 and 1 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 29 May and 1 June 2015 and was unannounced. There were two people living in the service at the time of the inspection. At the last inspection in May 2013 we found the service was meeting the regulations that we assessed.

Merchiston House is an assessment centre for people who have a range of learning disabilities. It provides accommodation for up to four adults for approximately three to eighteen months. The length of the placement period could be flexible depending on the person’s needs.

There was a registered manager 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Feedback about the service from people and relatives was positive. People said they liked living in the service. Comments from relatives included, “I don't think the level of service could possibly be improved. It is excellent” and another confirmed they were consulted about the care and support their family member received.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people were not able to make decisions about the care and support they received, the provider acted within the law to make decisions in their best interests. DoLS provides a process to make sure that people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way, when it is in their best interests and there is no other way to look after them. Where necessary, people’s capacity to make decisions about their lives was assessed and those people involved in the person’s life had their views considered.

People told us they felt safe whilst using service and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and what to do if they had concerns about a person’s safety. Staffing numbers on each shift were sufficient to help keep people safe.

People were encouraged to develop and maintain their independence and were supported to learn new skills. Activities were on offer at the service to enable people to learn new skills, for example cooking a meal, and people were also encouraged to participate in groups in the community.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff were knowledgeable about the people using the service and their preferences. People’s care was personalised and reflected their choices and individual needs. These had been assessed and where possible people had been involved with planning their own care.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people. Staff received regular training and were supported by the registered and assistant managers through supervision and appraisal processes.

We found that medicines were managed safely and records confirmed that people received their prescribed medicines.

People were supported to keep healthy and well. Staff responded to people’s changing needs and worked closely with other health and social care professionals when needed.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify where improvements needed to be made.

14 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four members of staff, two people who use the service and three relatives.

We looked at one person's care records and saw these were detailed and included their individual needs. People's behaviour was recorded and monitored so that staff could support them appropriately and recognise if there were any concerns or issues affecting people.

People were supported to make daily decisions about their lives and where this was not possible their relatives and professionals were involved. Best interest meetings were held to ensure the person's welfare and ability to make informed choices were assessed.

One person told us they liked living in the home and enjoyed going out to the evening social clubs. They said they went on day trips and carried out tasks, this included one person saying "I do my laundry", which we saw during the inspection.

Feedback from relatives was positive. They confirmed they felt there were usually enough staff working with the people in the home and that they knew how to meet people's needs. We viewed the staff rota and saw that there was always a senior member of staff working with the support workers. The home was also in the process of filling the staff vacancies.

There was an effective complaints procedure in place and staff encouraged people to share their views and to say how they were feeling. Relatives confirmed they would feel able to raise a concern or complaint to the staff team if they needed to.

24 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant not all of them were able to tell us their experiences. Therefore we spoke with one person who lived in the home and observed interactions between staff and the people living there. In addition we spoke with the relatives of four people and obtained the views of two professionals. We also spoke with four members of staff, including the manager of the home. We viewed the June 2012 Local Authority's monitoring report which showed they had no concerns about the home.

One person told us they were happy in the home and confirmed they went to social clubs in the evening and met other people. We observed positive interactions between staff and the people who live in the home. People were calm and relaxed and staff engaged with them throughout our visit.

All four relatives spoke positively about the home. They all said staff were skilled and understood people's needs. One relative said staff kept them informed if the person's needs changed. Relatives said 'staff ask for my views about the care the person receives and I feel involved'.

Feedback from two health and social care professionals was positive providing us with examples of where staff had worked to promote people's independence and had worked with other professionals in people's best interests. One professional commented on how the staff team worked 'flexibly' and adapted plans if people's needs changed.