• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: 93 Downs Park Road

93 Downs Park Road, London, E5 8JE

Provided and run by:
Advance Housing and Support Ltd

All Inspections

27 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our previous inspection in September 2013, we found the provider was not compliant with the regulations relating to consent to care and treatment. In particular the provider had not obtained the consent of people using the service or their representatives before making significant changes to the service. The provider had not complied with the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

We also found that the provider's arrangements for recording the administration of some medicines were insufficiently robust and were putting people who use the service at risk of harm.

At this inspection visit we saw that improvements had been made and these issues had been addressed.The provider was able to demonstrate that it was in people's interests to continue to live at the home following the changes to the service. People's representatives were consulted and people's capacity to consent was formally assessed.

We also found that the provider had improved its management of medicines, reducing the risk of medication errors.

10 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People using the service had complex needs and were unable to verbally tell us their views. However we spoke with three relatives who were involved in their lives. We also spoke with two support workers and two managers. Relatives gave mixed views about the quality of care they thought people who used the service received. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. However where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider did not act in accordance with legal requirements. We judged that this had a major impact on people who used the service.

The provider was required to make some improvements to the management of medicines at the last inspection. Whilst some improvement had been made, people were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines. This was because the provider still did not have in place appropriate arrangements and guidance in place to manage as required ( PRN) medicines safely.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. A complaints system was available and people had information about how to make a complaint if they wished to.

10 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because the people using the service had learning disabilities and complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

We spoke with four relatives, one for each person who used the service. Three out of four relatives told us they were pleased with the service and thought their relative was happy. One relative thought staff could provide more personalised care.

People's needs were assessed and met as set out in their individual support plans. Health and safety matters were addressed and procedures were in place and followed. Staff were familiar with people's needs and knew how to support them. Staff were supported and trained in their work. However people were not protected against the risks associated with medicines as arrangements to manage medicines safely were inadequate.

17 April 2012

During a routine inspection

The people who use the service have difficulty communicating verbally and so could not tell us about their experience of the home. To help us to assess the service provision, we used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection tool (SOFI). The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences.

Only one person was able to communicate verbally and they told us that they were happy in the home.