The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: College Road Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

SFI Care Homes, 4 College Road, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 8JL (020) 8795 1586

Provided and run by:
Striving for Independence Homes LLP

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

15 April 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection took place on 15 April 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 1 October 2015 we had found that while some improvements had been made from the inspection of March 2015, the service was still in breach of regulation in relation to the way it monitored the quality of care. We wrote a letter to the provider requiring documentation necessary for the purposes of monitoring how the service was addressing the shortfalls. The provider complied with this request. At this inspection we found some improvements had been made. There were systems to monitor the quality of the service. A range of audits had been completed. Risks to people had been identified and action taken to reduce the risks.

College Road Care Home is a care home that provides care, support and accommodation for up to three people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were two people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

We found considerable improvements had been made in relation to the monitoring of the quality of care. There were appropriate records of people’s finances including their spending. Staff carried out daily and weekly checks of people’s finances to reduce the risk of financial abuse. Risks to people were identified and monitored. Audits had been carried out to identify any improvements that were needed.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people and the service had conducted appropriate recruitment checks before staff started work.

People had been involved in the planning of their care. We also saw that their relatives were involved as appropriate. Support plans and risk assessments provided information and guidance for staff on how to support people.

1 October 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 1 October 2015. The inspection was announced.

College Road Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of three people with learning disabilities. There were two people using the service on the day of our inspection.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection on 9 March 2015 we found the provider was in breach of five of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. The provider had not taken steps to reduce risks where recruitment checks were not complete or satisfactory. Staff did not receive regular supervision. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were not applied in relevant situations. Planned care did not always meet people’s needs. We also found the provider did not run effective systems for monitoring the quality of care.

CQC received an updated action plan from the provider on 22 July 2015. This contained information about the corrective action the provider would take to address the issues we raised at the last inspection. At this inspection we found that the provider had addressed the shortfalls identified previously, however, there were areas that still required improvement. These areas related to quality monitoring and record keeping.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people. Staff had received a range of training to enable them to perform their roles and they had been

A relative of a person receiving care felt their relative was safe. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report if concerns were raised.

The two people receiving care had relevant risk assessments in place. These reflected current risks and ways to reduce the risk from happening.

There were appropriate arrangements for the management of people’s medicines and staff had received training in administering medicines.

Staff received training and they were supported through regular supervision and appraisal. We saw staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and people’s capacity was assessed in line with the MCA.

Staff knew people’s needs well. They treated people with dignity and respect and we observed care was provided with kindness and compassion.

9 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 9 March 2014 and was unannounced.

College Road Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of three people with learning disabilities. There were two people using the service on the day of our inspection. At our last inspection in October 2013 the service was compliant with all the regulations we looked at.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Although people’s records showed that they had access to healthcare professionals, the provider did not always ensure people received coordinated care with other services involved in people’s care.

Care plans and risk assessments were not always updated following reviews or when there was a change in people’s needs. This meant staff did not always have an accurate care plan record to ensure they had information about how to meet the person’s individual care needs.

Senior management and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). However, the care files did not have adequate assessments of people’s mental capacity to make decisions about their care or treatment. In addition, there was not an effective system in place to prevent people being unnecessarily deprived of their liberty. For example, the provider had not made an application under DoLS for people living at the home, even though their liberty may have been restricted.

There were limited systems in place for staff to discuss issues and influence the operation of the home. The provider did not have regular meetings with people, relatives and staff, including surveys to gather their views about the quality of the service.

The provider did not have a robust recruitment policy that covered employing ex-offenders. There was no guidance to follow in relation to managing job applications involving ex-offenders. This meant that people could be at potential risk of receiving care from staff that may be unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults.

The provider did not have an effective process of monitoring quality. We found that the provider had not picked up on risks to people’s safety and welfare that we had identified during our visit.

We found five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

The provider did not ensure the recruitment practices always ensured people were protected from staff unsuitable to work with vulnerable people. This was a breach of Regulation 21 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The registered provider did not have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining, and acting with, the consent of service users in relation to the care and treatment provided for them. This was a breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The registered person did not have suitable arrangements to ensure staff were appropriately supported by receiving supervision and appraisal. This was a breach of Regulation 23 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The registered person had not taken proper steps to ensure that each person was protected against the risks of receiving inappropriate care and treatment because the provider did not always plan and deliver the service in a way to meet individual needs. This was a breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The registered person had not protected people against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care by means of the effective operation of systems to assess and monitor the quality of services provided. This was a breach of Regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We also made recommendations in relation to coordination of care between services, people’s involvement in their care, meeting people’s communication needs and in respect of supporting people when they wanted to make complains about care.

28 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak to people using the service because they had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

We spoke with staff and observed care to check how staff promoted people's privacy and dignity when delivering care. We were satisfied that staff were knowledgeable about the need to protect people's privacy and dignity.

We looked at how the service reduced the risk of people receiving unsafe and inappropriate care. We saw that care needs of people had been assessed, together with action for minimising potential risks.

We checked to see if medicines were handled securely and given to people safely. We were satisfied that medicines were prescribed, handled and given to people appropriately.

Staff had received essential training and support to enable them to do their work. They understood the needs of people and how to meet them. People who used the service or those acting on their behalf were enabled to make comments or complaints about the quality of care.

13 December 2012

During a routine inspection

People using the service had limited communication skills, but were able to express themselves through gestures, facial expressions and pointing.

We observed staff reading these signs very well and people were very comfortable in the presence of staff; we noted a lot of smiles, laughter and happy facial expressions.

People accessed various local day centres during the day and go to pubs, restaurants, a cinema or day trips during the weekends. Care plans were comprehensive and regular reviews ensured that changing needs were addressed and included.

Staff understood whom and how to report allegations of abuse.

Appropriate medication procedures ensured that medicines were administered and stored safely and records ensured that this had been monitored appropriately.

We noted that staff were available in sufficient numbers to support people's needs and additional staff could be obtained if required.

Regular checks and surveys about the service ensured people were able to contribute to their treatment or care and improvements were implemented where shortfalls were reported.