Archived: London Borough of Richmond upon Thames - Princes Road Residential Care Home

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

During our visit we saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect in accordance with the London Borough of Richmond's dignity and respect policy, procedure and training provided. People told us they felt safe and the care practices we saw were delivered in a safe, caring and supportive way. Safeguarding procedures were robust, staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported and had received training. Specific areas of concern or circumstances under which people may be particularly vulnerable were recorded in their support plans.

The quality assurance systems in place were robust, followed and enabled the manager and staff to learn from events that included accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced risks to people and enhanced the opportunity for the service to continue to improve.

The home had working policies and procedures regarding the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) although no applications were required to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application was required and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded.

The service was safe, clean, hygienic and the equipment used was well maintained and serviced regularly. This reduced risks to people.

The staff rotas were flexible, indicated that there were enough staff on duty at all times to meet people's needs and took their individual care needs and routines into account when deciding how many staff and what particular skills and experience were required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

The 3 case files we looked at contained health and social care needs assessments. The records provided information that was person centred and enabled people to have a fulfilling and good quality life style. The support plans we looked at were up to date and there was written evidence that people's care reviews were taking place. Information included likes and dislikes, what was important to people, hobbies and interests and any specialist health, dietary, mobility and equipment requirements. People told us "I check my care plan" and "I like living here and I've been here for a long time".

People had access to advocates and one person said "I like to go for a nice ride in the van and visit my advocate". This meant that people could access additional support.

We saw that the service and staff enabled people to move around freely, safely and met their physical needs.

Visitors were able to see people in private and visiting times were flexible as demonstrated by the home's policy and procedure.

Is the service caring?

The care practices we saw demonstrated that people received appropriate support provided by well trained, attentive and caring staff. We saw that staff were patient, encouraging and people were supported to make their own choices.

People's preferences, interests, hobbies and diverse needs were recorded and updated within their person centred support plans. Activities were also recorded in their daily notes. Much of the information was presented in a pictorial version that enabled people to understand the care and support they received and ensure it met their needs and wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People were engaged in a range of activities at home and outside the service during our visit. We saw that this was the home's usual routine and was reflected in the records kept, what we saw and what people told us. The activities were based upon people's preferences and interests. The home had a minibus that enabled people to take an active part in activities within their local community.

There were annual satisfaction surveys sent out centrally by the London Borough of Richmond who ran the service. If service shortfalls or concerns were raised, they were addressed and house meetings took place giving people an opportunity to give their views, suggestions and opinions.

People said that any problems they had were generally sorted out on the spot or during house meetings. We looked at how complaints were investigated and found the system was satisfactory. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The home's management structure was incorporated within that of the London Borough of Richmond and there were clear management links of responsibility and culpability. People said and we saw that the home's management team was pro-active, listened to their needs, opinions and acted upon them. The service worked well with other agencies and services as demonstrated by the relationships built with community based health services such as GPs and the 'Hospital passport' information provided by the home if people had to visit hospital.

They did not tell us about the support staff received or the complaints system. They did tell us they liked their rooms. "I like my room it has my stuff in it and it was painted last year". One person also told us "I go to college and do paperwork".

We saw people being treated with dignity and respect by staff and they had up to date support plans that were reviewed monthly. The support plans and complaints procedure were available in pictorial versions to make them easier to understand.

The home was kept clean, tidy and was well maintained.

There was an easy to understand admissions procedure although the last person moved in ten years ago.

Staff received appropriate support and supervision.