Archived: Nisacraft Care (London)

Updated 1 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector. Before we visited the home we checked the information we held about the service and the service provider including notifications and incidents affecting the safety and well-being of people. No concerns had been raised.

There were three people using the service. All the people had learning disabilities and could not always communicate with us and tell us what they thought about the service. Because of this, we spent time at the home observing the experience of the people and their care, how the staff interacted with people and how they supported people during the day.

We spoke with three relatives. We also spoke with the provider, deputy manager and two care workers. We reviewed three people’s care plans, four staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the service such as audits, policies and procedures.

Updated 1 April 2017

We undertook an unannounced inspection on 27 January 2017 of Nisacraft Care (London). Nisacraft Care (London) is a care home that provides personal care and accommodation for up to 3 people who have learning disabilities.

At the last inspection on the 17 November 2014 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Since the last inspection, the registered manager had left. The home was being managed and supported by a deputy manager and the provider. The deputy manager has submitted an application to apply to become registered manager for the home.

We found there were some systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. However there was no effective auditing of the quality of service being provided. The provider told us she will look at adopting a new quality assurance tool for the service.

People's health and social care needs had been appropriately assessed. Care plans were person-centred, and specific to each person and their needs.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care provided. Relatives also told us that they were confident that people were safe in the home. However they raised some concerns about the variety and quality of food, the lack of activities and the cleanliness of the home. The deputy manager told us they regularly liaised with relatives about any issues they may not be happy with but would address these concerns.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse. Systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.

There was a record of essential maintenance carried out at the home. Bedrooms had been personalised with people's belongings to assist people to feel at home.

Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with induction and training to enable them to support people effectively. They had the necessary support, supervision and appraisals from management.

Further information is in the detailed findings below