Archived: Harrow Council - Southdown Crescent

We observed the care provided and the interaction between staff and people who used the service. We spoke with some people, some care staff and a relative of a person who used the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. We observed that staff were supervising people to ensure they were safe. People were treated with respect and dignity. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Care records contained risk assessments which provided guidance to staff on action to take to keep people safe. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLs) which applies to care homes. While no applications had been submitted, appropriate policies and procedures were in place. Staff spoken with had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the DOLs and how it applied to the people they supported..

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People's likes and dislikes were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of these. People's care plans contained assessments and up to date plans of care with details of routines and the type of care to be provided. Where risks had been identified measures were in place to minimise the risk.

Is the service caring?

People told us that staff were pleasant and took good care of them. One person told us 'Staff respect me because they take my advice.' We observed that people who used the service were well cared for. We saw people were able to approach staff freely when they needed help. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and their diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We observed that staff were attentive towards people and when people needed help or attention, staff responded immediately. We saw that the provider had responded positively to people's feedback.

Is the service well-led?

The home did not have a registered manager. At the time of this inspection, the home was in the process of appointing a new manager. The person covering in the absence of the manager was knowledgeable about their role and responsibilities. There were arrangements in place for monitoring the quality of care provided.

All the people we spoke with told us that they were able to make decisions regarding their care. Although it was not always recorded people agreed to updates with their care plan, we saw evidence that people consented to the care they were provided.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. There were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure people's needs could be met.

None of the people we spoke with had any concerns regarding the care they received. The service had processes and procedures in place to help prevent the possibility of vulnerable people being abused.

The service assessed that it had the appropriate amount of staff to be able to support people's needs. However although further staff training had been booked, some staff training was not up to date.

The service had up to date and fit for purpose records regarding both people who used the service and the service itself.

Both the people we spoke with were happy with the care they received and felt they were safe. One person said "(It's) marvellous to be here" and "great support for all the clients." The service ensured people were cared for in a way that ensured their safety and welfare.

All the people we spoke with told us they liked their rooms and the rest of the home. We found that the home was well maintained and a safe environment.

Staff had the opportunity for professional development but sometimes that opportunity was limited.

The people we spoke with both said they were asked to feedback how they felt the service could improve, both via meetings with staff and by questionnaires. The provider had in place processes to ensure the service was monitored on a regular basis.