• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Suffolk House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

451 Green Lanes, London, N13 4BS (020) 8886 7262

Provided and run by:
Rethink Mental Illness

All Inspections

19 January 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out on 19 January 2016 and was unannounced.

During our inspection on 11 June 2013 we found that detailed assessments of people’s physical health needs were not always carried out. Records of people’s medicines were not always accurate and arrangements for the safe storage of medicines were insufficient. A follow up inspection on 31 December 2013 found the service compliant.

Suffolk House works in partnership with the local NHS mental health Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team (CRHTT) and all referrals to the service come through the CRHTT. The service provides accommodation and care for up to 12 people recovering from mental health problems. People usually stay at the service for up to two weeks and are assessed by CRHTT before being discharged to alternative accommodation.

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 legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the associated regulations on how the service is run.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and had a good understanding in keeping people safe. They knew how to recognise abuse and who to report to and understood how to whistle blow. Whistleblowing is when someone who works for an employer raises a concern about harm, or a risk of harm, to people who use the service. There were policies and procedures in place for staff to follow.

There was enough staff to support people safely and to meet their individual needs.

Assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to people using the service and steps were taken to minimise potential risks and to safeguard people from harm.

Medicines were stored and recorded correctly.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place that ensured staff were suitable to work with people, as staff had undergone the required checks before starting to work at the service.

Care plans were personalised to the people using the service. People were involved in planning of care and the care plans were then signed by people to ensure they were happy with the care and support listed on the care plan.

People had access to healthcare services such as the GP and dentists.

Systems were in place to ensure staff received regular supervision and appraisal. Staff received induction training and also received regular training to ensure that people were safe and the care provided was effective.

Complaints were managed appropriately and people were aware on how to make complaints.

People participated in a number of activities such as going to football groups, playing games and attending community centres.

People's privacy and dignity was maintained. People were independent and we saw people moving freely around the house and were able to go to their rooms and outside without interruption.

Systems were in place for quality assurance. The manager conducted regular audits, which included welfare and health and safety checks. An unannounced audit was also carried out by the provider’s management team.

Questionnaires were completed by people about the service. However, we did not see systems were in place to analyse the findings of the survey.

31 December 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to check whether improvements had been made since our last inspection of the service in June 2013. At that inspection we found that detailed assessments of people's physical health needs were not always carried out and the planning of care in respect of people's medicines did not always ensure their safety or meet their individual needs. Records of people's medicines were not always accurate and arrangements for the safe storage of medicines were inadequate. We asked the provider to take action to address these concerns.

At our inspection of the service on 31 December 2013 we found that significant improvements had been made. Assessments of people's physical health needs had been undertaken and action plans were in place for those people who had identified physical health needs. People's capability to manage their own medicines was assessed and everyone had a plan in place to ensure they received the support they needed.

Medicines kept on the premises were stored safely and staff carried out checks to make sure people's medicines could not be accessed by others. Accurate records of people's medicines were kept in their files.

11 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who were using the service. They were both very positive about the support they had received from the service. One person told us that 'staff are absolutely brilliant.' Another said, 'staff are extremely caring and helpful.' People said they had been involved in identifying their personal goals and the support they needed from staff to achieve them. We saw staff interacting with people in a caring and sensitive way and responding to their needs. People told us that they felt very safe with staff and with other people in the service. People we spoke with told us the building was 'well maintained' and a 'very nice and relaxing environment.'

Staff demonstrated the knowledge and skills needed to protect patients from possible abuse. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and ensure care and support was provided in a safe environment.

However, we found that people were not always protected against the risks of unsafe storage and recording of medicines. In addition detailed assessments of people's physical health needs were not always carried out and the planning of care did not always ensure people's welfare and safety or meet their individual needs in respect of the self-administration of medicines.

20 April 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with a group of three people who used the service. They told us they were satisfied with the support they received and felt their needs were being met. For example, one person said, 'it's been good, a much better option than going to hospital'. People described staff as 'amazing' and 'very kind'. One person said, 'they are never too busy to talk to you' and another agreed that 'staff always make time for you'. The environment was described as 'chilled' and 'calm'. People said they were involved in making decisions about their care and were treated with respect by staff. All of the people we spoke with told us that they felt safe using the service. Everyone said they would recommend the service to others and would use the service again if they needed to.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided and staff were supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard.