• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: St Raphaels

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

32 Orchard Road, Bromley, Kent, BR1 2PS (020) 8313 1377

Provided and run by:
Methodist Homes

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

18 and 19 August 2014

During a routine inspection

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

We found that a new manager had been appointed in May 2014 and had recently applied to become registered manager. The previous registered manager had left some time previously and had recently submitted their application to deregister as manager for this service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.

The last inspection took place on 27 and 29 November 2013, this was a follow up inspection related to previous breaches, to check that the service was meeting the regulations for medicines and care and welfare of people  and found the service met these regulations.

St Raphaels is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 58 people who have nursing or residential care needs. There are two units which accommodate 38 people in total with residential care needs and a unit for 20 people with nursing needs.

There were 48 people using the service on the day of the inspection. We found people’s safety was being compromised in some areas. There were inadequate procedures in place in case of fire. We have referred this to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to assess if the provider was meeting required fire safety standards. We found the provider was not always meeting the regulations in relation to people’s consent to care and mental capacity assessments, the management of medicines and in their arrangements for emergencies. You can see the action we have asked the provider to take at the end of the full version of this report.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was reviewing whether any applications needed to be made in response to the recent Supreme Court judgement in relation to DoLS that had changed what was regarded as a deprivation of liberty. They told us they were in contact with the local authority about what action to take.

Risks to people were identified and reviewed when required and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. There were adequate maintenance systems in place, and equipment at the service was checked regularly by staff or external contractors.

People told us they were safe, happy and well looked after. We observed good relationships between staff and people at the service and with their relatives. We noted staff took their time to interact with people in a meaningful way and treat people with dignity and respect. There was a range of activities available which people could chose to join in with.

Staff had adequate training to carry out their work and support people according to their care plans. People’s health was monitored and they or their relatives were involved in planning their care. People had enough to eat and drink and those who required support with their diet were identified and plans put in place to meet their needs. People were consulted about the service and they knew how to complain if they were unhappy.

The new manager had made some improvements and identified the need for further changes at the service. Most of the staff we spoke with were positive about the changes and felt the service had improved. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and learning or actions identified; although these were not always consistently put into practice. While we could see that progress had been made there were still some improvements required.

27, 29 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People using the service, their relatives, and other visitors we spoke with were satisfied with the treatment and care the home provided. For example, one person using the service said: 'The nurses are all right. They are helping me get better." A relative told us: 'I know all the staff. They're ever so pleasant to me. They look after [my mother] really well.'

However a few people told us staff were sometimes very rushed and had too much to do. For example, one person using the service said: 'Lunch finished so late yesterday I missed the film. [The staff] were still doing the rooms'. A relative we spoke with said: 'Things have improved over the past few weeks, especially staffing at the weekend.'

At our last inspection on 27 June 2013 we found people using the service did not always experience care, treatment and support that met their needs. Nor were they protected against the risks associated with medicines. Improvements had been made and the provider was continuing to work through its action plan; however further compliance action was required to meet these essential standards..

At this inspection we found the provider was meeting these essential standards. The provider recognised that sustaining compliance with essential standards depended on recruiting a suitable manager for the home. The recruitment process was in progress.

27 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected the service on 27 June 2013 in order to follow up on enforcement action we had taken regarding the way the service managed medicines and people's care and welfare. We found that improvements had been made in these areas but the provider had not yet carried out all the actions required to ensure the risks associated with managing medicines and the care and welfare of people had been addressed.

We spoke with people at the home and their relatives or carers. Almost all the people we spoke with were happy with the service they received. One person told us "I get what I want when I need it". Another person told us the staff were "the finest lot of people anywhere". However some people at the home did not find the food they were offered suitable for their needs.

29 April and 2 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we inspected the home we spoke with people using the service and their family members. Some people we spoke with told us they were happy at the home and they were well cared for. However other people we spoke with told us they did not always get their needs met in a timely manner. On the day of our inspection we noted that two people reported experiencing pain but this had not been assessed by staff. People or their family members told us they did not always get supported in line with their care plan. Some people told us they enjoyed the food at the home but other people said there was very little choice.

At our April and May 2013 inspection we found that since our last visit in November 2012 the provider had ensured criminal records checks were available for all staff employed by the service and had reviewed the staffing levels. However we found that people using the service did not receive suitable care and welfare at all times and, medicines were not managed appropriately. In few instances we found that people's personal records were not accurate and up to date.

16 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected the service previously on 15 November 2012 and found the provider was failing to meet the essential standard relating to training and supporting staff. We inspected the service again on 16 January 2013 and found the provider had taken steps to address these issues.

15 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We had previously inspected the home in January 2012 and asked the provider to make improvements to their training, supervision and appraisal arrangements to support staff and we saw the provider had made progress with staff training. At our inspection of 15 November 2012 most people told us they were happy at the home and felt well cared for. However we found concerns with the way care was planned and delivered, the way medicines were stored and administered, safeguarding arrangements, staffing and record keeping at the home. We remained concerned about the supervision arrangements for staff.

17 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People using the service told us that they were overall happy living in the home. They said that staff were 'nice,' 'polite' and 'looked after people well.' Staff were responsive to their needs and kept bedrooms and the home clean.

People told us that they felt safe and that if there were any problems or concerns then they were happy to raise these with the staff or manager.

Staff that we spoke to said that they enjoyed working at the home and that on the whole everyone worked well together. They told us that there had been a number of changes to the way staff worked which they felt were positive for the home.