The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Liverpool Grove

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

26 Liverpool Grove, Walworth, London, SE17 2HJ (020) 7703 1935

Provided and run by:
PLUS (Providence Linc United Services)

All Inspections

5 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Liverpool Grove provides accommodation and support for up to five adults who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service.

At our last inspection on 2 December 2013 the service met the regulations we inspected.

The service had a registered manager. 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. They were not available on the day of the inspection but we spoke with them after our inspection. The service had an additional manager in post managing the day to day running of the service who was available on the day of our inspection.

An appropriate environment was not provided to people who used the service. There were ongoing concerns regarding the premises and we saw that work and maintenance was required to provide an environment that met people’s needs. We found a breach of the regulation relating to the safety and suitability of premises. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.  

There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs, and these were regularly reviewed and updated through attendance at training courses, supervision sessions and appraisals.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support needs and the information contained in people’s support plans. Staff were aware of people’s communication methods and took the time to support people to express their wishes and make decisions about their care. People were happy and relaxed at the service and told us they appreciated the support provided to them by the staff.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures. Any concerns regarding a person’s safety was escalated to either their manager or the person’s social worker so that appropriate action could be taken to maintain the person’s safety and welfare. Management plans were in place to address any risks identified to the people using the service.

People were supported to access healthcare appointments. Staff followed the guidance and advice provided by healthcare specialists about how to meet people’s physical health needs.

There had been a number of changes in management of the service over the last year. However, the staff and other health and social care professionals involved in people’s care felt the current manager provided stability and leadership at the service. Processes were in place to support staff to express their views and opinions, and they were encouraged to speak up if they felt areas of service delivery could be improved. There were systems in place to check the quality of the service provided and action was taken as required when areas requiring improvement were identified.

2 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Consent to care and treatment had been asked for and recorded. The service acted in accordance with legal requirements where consent could not be given.

Care plans and other records showed that people's care was planned and described in a person-centred manner. Care plans were outcomes based, and we saw evidence that these were reviewed regularly and that the person, along with relevant professionals, was involved in this process. Detailed risk assessments were also in place. People who used the service participated in a range of activities within the home, and in the local community. We spoke to a person who used the service. They told us that they liked living at the service, and that, 'staff help me to clean and cook,' and, 'they help me to go out to the bank and shops.'

Medicines were stored, managed, recorded and administered appropriately. Staff received training in medication procedures.

The service environment was clean, well maintained, and suitable for the physical and sensory needs of the people who used it. People were supported to personalise their own spaces.

Staff received appropriate professional development. Staff received a range of mandatory and other training. Regular supervisions, appraisals and team meetings took place.

The provider had effective quality assurance procedures that were used to inform service improvements,

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection of Liverpool Grove on 13 June 2012 when we found the provider met the four essential standards of quality and safety we inspected. It is our expectation that we will usually focus on one essential standard from each of the five key areas in our 'Guidance about compliance' every year. To achieve this in the area of 'quality and management' we carried out a review on 12 March 2013 to cover, 'complaints'.

We did not talk to people who use the service during this review. The review involved us looking at evidence we held about the provider's complaints process.

13 June 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection of Liverpool Grove on 4 January 2012. At that inspection we spoke with one person who said that they liked living at the home and were happy there. However, the four other people using the service had limited communication as a result of their disabilities. We therefore spoke with their advocate about the quality of service provided. The advocate raised concerns about some of the practices in the home. The placing authority also raised concerns with us about the service provided to the people they had placed at the home. The authority issued the service with an improvement plan following discussion of those concerns with the provider's senior management.

Our findings at inspection confirmed that the some of the practices in the home did not promote sufficiently the safety and well being of the people living there. We found that Liverpool Grove was not meeting four of the essential standards of quality and safety.

Following our inspection the provider submitted an action plan to tell us what they were doing to make improvements. We visited on 13 June 2012 to see whether they had made these improvements.

When we visited the home on 13 June we spoke with one person who said that they enjoyed taking part in different activities and told us about the club they were going to that night to meet with friends. We spoke again with the placement authority who had previously raised concerns with us about the service. They told us that the provider had made significant progress in addressing issues in the improvement plan they had issued. The main outstanding issue related to the management of people's finances.

Our inspection found that the provider had made improvements in the areas of concern we identified previously and was now meeting the essential standards of quality and safety in these areas.