• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: London Borough of Greenwich - 75 Ashburnham Grove

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

75 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, London, SE10 8UJ (020) 8692 5032

Provided and run by:
London Borough of Greenwich

All Inspections

15 February 2017

During a routine inspection

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 15 and 17 February 2017. London Borough of Greenwich – 75 Ashburnham Grove provides personal care and support for up to 11 adults who have a range of needs including learning disabilities. There were nine people receiving personal care and support at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. However, currently a new manager was in day to day management of this service.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and that staff treated them well. The service had clear procedures to support staff to recognise and respond to abuse. The new manager and staff completed safeguarding training. Staff completed risk assessments for every person who used the service which were up to date and included detailed guidance to reduce risks. There was an effective system to manage accidents and incidents, and to prevent them happening again. The service had arrangements in place to deal with emergencies. The service carried out comprehensive background checks of staff before they started working and there were enough staff on duty to support to people when required. Staff supported people to take their medicines safely.

The service provided training, and supported staff through regular supervision and an annual appraisal of their performance to help them undertake their role. Staff prepared, reviewed, and updated care plans for every person. The care plans were person centred and reflected people’s current needs.

The provider ensured the service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed.

Staff assessed people’s nutritional needs and supported them to have a balanced diet. Staff also supported people to access the healthcare services they required and monitored their healthcare appointments.

People and their relatives where appropriate, were involved in the assessment, planning and review of their care. Staff considered people’s choices, health and social care needs, and their general wellbeing. Staff supported people in a way which was kind, respectful and encouraged to maintain their independence. Staff also protected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff supported people to take part in a range of activities in support of their need for social interaction and stimulation. The service had a clear policy and procedure about managing complaints. People and their relatives knew how to complain and told us they would do so if necessary.

There was a positive culture at the home where people felt included and consulted. Staff felt supported by the manager. The provider sought the views of people who used the service to help drive improvements. The provider also had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of services people received, and to make improvements where required. Staff used the results of audits to identify how improvements could be made to the service.

12 November 2014

During a routine inspection

London Borough of Greenwich – 75 Ashburnham Grove provides accommodation and personal care for up to 11 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 10 people living at the service. This inspection was unannounced and carried out on 12 November 2014. At our previous inspection on 27 December 2013, we found the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Some people were able to tell us their views of the service, whilst others had a variety of ways of communicating and were not able to fully communicate their views and experiences. Staff used pictures and sign language to communicate with people. People using the service and their relatives said staff knew them or their relatives well and knew what they needed help with. As far as possible people using the service had been involved in the care planning process. People’s relatives and appropriate health and social care professionals had been involved in the care planning process. We found risks to people using the services were assessed, risk assessments and care plans provided clear information and guidance to staff.

Safeguarding adults procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home. People’s medicines were managed appropriately so they received them safely.

The manager and staff completed relevant training to ensure the care provided to people with learning disability needs was safe and effective. Staff supervision and annual appraisals for care staff were up to date and in line with the provider's timescale. All staff we spoke with felt supported by their line manager and said they received advice and direction when required, to meet the needs of people at all times.

People were able to make choices. Where they lacked the capacity to do so decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were no DoLS authorisations currently in place; however the registered manager knew the correct procedures to follow to ensure people’s rights were protected.

We observed that staff were caring and attentive to people. Staff approached people with dignity and respect and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs.

The provider had effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Throughout the inspection, staff spoke positively about the culture of the service and told us it was well-managed and well-led. A health care professional told us the staff manages people’s needs extremely well, and they follow guidance given to them. The manager told us the provider had planned for a consultation on 19 November 2014, with people, their relatives and advocates in relation to the proposed closure of the home, due to the age of the building.

27 December 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The two people who use the service we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care provided by the home.

We found that people's care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people's care needs and knew how to protect them from risk and harm. However, some of the daily care records we saw were not completed as per care plan.

16 August 2013

During a routine inspection

All the people we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care provided by the home. People we spoke with told us that staff looked after them well and supported them as and when needed to meet their assessed health and social care needs. For example a person told us: "I went to do a bench, I enjoyed it', another person said: 'I did gardening and enjoyed it".

We found people were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Care and treatment was mostly planned but was not always delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse and staff understood people's care needs and knew how to protect them from risk and harm. We found staff had followed correct procedures of medication and signed medication administration records (MAR) to show that people had taken their medication. We saw there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

2 November 2012

During a routine inspection

All the people we spoke with told that staff listened to and consulted them in decisions about their care and daily lives. For example one person said 'I could eat anything, good food here' another person said 'I like gardening, I do gardening'.

Some people who had communication difficulties told us by using gestures and sign language that staff behaved appropriately when providing care and support to them and were friendly and polite.