• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: Kirkwood Road

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

99 Kirkwood Road, Peckham, London, SE15 3XU (020) 8768 7905

Provided and run by:
Hexagon Housing Association

All Inspections

13/02/2020

During a routine inspection

We rated Kirkwood Road as Requires Improvement because:

•Staff did not always update risk assessments for each client. This meant that the service did not put a risk management plan in place to mitigate the risk or put in safeguards.

•Staff did not always contact police when a resident was deemed missing. Client records did not identify clients who were most at risk so that staff knew when to communicate with the police about high risk and vulnerable clients.

•Medicines’ audits were not effective in identifying errors or poor practice.

•Staff did not develop care plans and recovery plans that included the accessible information needs of clients with a disability or sensory loss, which meant there was no information for care staff or others on their communication needs or how they should be met.

•There was little evidence of how staff were planning for clients’ discharges. This was similar to the last inspection.

•The registered nurse in the service had not received clinical supervision from a registered nurse in the last 12 months prior to inspection.

•The governance overall was not robust enough to provide sufficient oversight of service performance, quality and safety. Systems and processes in place had not been effective in identifying problems with quality and safety in respect of medicines management, risk assessments, identification of clients’ holistic needs and expired items in the first aid box.

•The provider should ensure that staff plan appropriately for the discharge of all people who use the service.

However:

•The service had enough staff, who knew the clients and received appropriate training to keep clients safe from avoidable harm. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.

•Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood their individual needs. They actively involved clients and families and carers in care decisions.

•All clinical premises where clients received care were safe, visibly clean, well equipped, well furnished, well maintained and fit for purpose.

•Staff understood how to protect clients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

•The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them, learned lessons from the results, and shared these with all staff. The service gave clients, families and their carers information on how to make a complaint.

•Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They reported that the provider promoted equality and diversity in its day-to-day work and in providing opportunities for career progression. They felt able to raise concerns without fear of retribution

31 October - 1 November 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated Kirkwood Road as Good because:

  • Staff provided a safe and clean environment for all those who used the service by supporting people to keep their flats clean and tidy and keeping the communal areas in good condition. Staff adhered to infection control principles and equipment was well maintained. Medicines were stored securely and staff provided people who used the service with information regarding their treatment options. Staff regularly assessed and monitored the risks to people who used the service and kept updated action plans on how to manage risks.
  • The service supported the independent living of people who used the service by providing each person with fully furnished private accommodation that met their needs.
  • There were enough qualified and experienced staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff demonstrated their commitment to supporting independent living through their positive attitude to their work and in the way they communicated and worked with people who used the service. Those people we spoke with said that staff were caring and supportive. Staff took time to ensure that people using the service understood their options regarding care, treatment welfare and housing rights and further supported them make choices to in respect of those options.
  • The care plans drawn up by staff for people who used the service were detailed, up to date, person-centred and showed a clear commitment to meet people’s individual needs. Staff liaised effectively with external agencies, including GPs, welfare and housing services and organisations providing activities to help support people’s recovery.
  • Staff met regularly to review the care needs and risk assessments of all those who used the service and handover meetings between staff members on different shifts discussed people’s needs in detail.
  • Staff received continued supervision and support from management and there were opportunities for staff development. Morale among staff at the service was good and the staff members we spoke with were enthusiastic about their work and the support they received. There were action plans in place to monitor the development and quality of the service and managers met regularly to review the progress of these plans.

However:

  • There was evidence that some staff members did not understand what situations could indicate that someone might be at risk of serious harm, meaning that they did not respond appropriately to one particular incident at the service. Staff did also not appropriately update the risk assessment of a person using the service following this incident.

  • Although there was evidence that staff explained to people who used the service what happened when things went wrong, the provider did not have a policy to instruct staff regarding their legal duty of candour to inform and apologise for things going wrong in specific circumstances. Staff were not aware of this duty and had not received training in it. Also, although some people who used the service were treated in the community under the Mental Health Act staff did not receive up to date training in the Act to help ensure they understood those people’s rights.

  • Although staff planned people’s care and treatment in detail, there was no evidence of discharge planning in the care records of 10 of the 12 people who used the service.

  • While there were detailed plans for the development of the service, these plans did not contain specific and measurable outcomes to allow staff to identify whether those plans had been successful.