• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: The Greenway

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

48A Greenway Avenue, London, E17 3QN (020) 8509 7243

Provided and run by:
Customised Care Services Limited

All Inspections

29 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 29 January 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides an outreach service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

We last inspected this service in May 2014. At that time we found the provider was in breach of regulations because staff told us they restrained people even though they had not undertaken any training on the use of restraint and the provider did not have a policy and procedure in place about the use of restraint. The provider sent us an action plan detailing how they planned to deal with these issues. We found the service was now meeting the regulation.

The service provided an outreach support programme to people that lived in their own homes. This included supporting people to access activities, community facilities and to develop their independence. The service was registered for the provision of personal care. At the time of our inspection one person was using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Relatives told us they believed their relative was safe. They said their relative was treated well and the service knew how to support them and meet their needs. They told us the registered manager was approachable and listened to what they had to say.

Staff were aware of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults. Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people in a safe manner. There was enough staff working at the service to keep people safe.

Staff were supported by the service through one to one supervision and training. People’s capacity was assessed and they were able to make choices about their care and staff understood their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). MCA is law that supports people to make choices where they have the capacity to do so. People were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet and had choice over what they ate. The service supported people to attend medical appointments.

People were treated with dignity and respect. The service sought to promote people’s independence and privacy. Staff interacted with people in a caring manner.

Care plans were in place and staff had a good understanding of how to meet people’s needs. Relatives told us the service was reliable. People knew how to make complaints and staff were aware of their responsibility for responding to any complaints received.

People told us the registered manager was approachable and helpful. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place. Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to medicines.

8 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

Relatives of people who used the service told us they felt people were safe using the service. One relative told us "oh yes, he is very safe, I trust them." We found that staff had undertaken training about safeguarding vulnerable adults and allegations of abuse had been dealt with appropriately. Risk assessments were in place which set out how to meet people's needs in a safe manner. However, we found that appropriate arrangements were not in place for the safe use of restraint on people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We spoke with relatives of people who used the service. They told us they were happy with the care and support provided. Comments included "my son loves the service, it's brilliant" and " they are doing a good job." Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the individual needs of people.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and caring manner. Staff were able to tell us how they promoted people's choice, independence and dignity. Checks were carried out on staff before they began working with vulnerable adults to help ensure they were of a suitable character.

Is the service responsive?

Before people received any care they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Relatives told us the service consulted with them about the care and support provided. One said "they listen to what I tell them to do" and "I did the assessment and care plan with them." We found that assessments and care plans were in place which set out how to meet people's individual and assessed needs. These had been signed by relatives of people who used the service.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in place and a clear management structure. Staff we spoke with told us they found the management to be approachable. They said they had regular supervision where they could raise any issues about the service. Relatives of people who used the service told us they were consulted about the service. One told us "I fill in the form asking me what I think.

31 October 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit, the provider did not have a registered manager in place. We spoke to two members of staff and two relatives of people who used the service.

Staff and relatives told us they always asked for and obtained people's consent before carrying out any care work. A relative told us, "they encourage him to do things, but they never force him." However, we did not find documentary evidence that people or their representatives had agreed to the plan of care.

People were provided with a choice of healthy and nutritious food and fluids to meet their needs. Relatives told us, 'they encourage him to drink water' and 'they are nice meals.'

We found evidence that staff were trained in infection control and food hygiene. There were cleaning schedules and food hygiene checks. Staff had access to appropriate protective clothing when required.

We found that people's personal records were accurate and complete and that other records relevant to the service were fit for purpose.

15, 16 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak to people who were using the service on this occasion.

We spoke to two managers and two members of support staff. Staff explained how the service worked with people who had challenging behaviour and that care was designed to protect their dignity and independence and maintain community involvement. They were able to give specific examples of risk reduction strategies, which corresponded with what was written in care plans. People's risk assessments and care plans had been updated within the last year.

Staff told us that they "definitely" felt supported by their managers. One staff member told us about specific support they had needed from managers and said "they have been fantastic." We saw supervision notes showing that specific and general issues had been discussed and, where necessary, resolved.

18 December 2012

During a routine inspection

Some of the people who use the service were unable to express their views so we spoke to them with the assistance of their key workers and reviewed their care plans and surveys completed by their family members.

We observed people being treated with dignity and respect supported by personalised care plans. A key worker system was in place which supported people to remain as independent as possible.

There was detailed person centred information available in the service user guide and a guide for family and friends. These were published in an easy read format with pictures and large print.

We spoke with three members of staff who said they enjoyed their jobs and had a good level of support from managers and within the team. Staff were able to describe how they treated people using the service with dignity and respect. This was highlighted in the statement of purpose.