The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Fortis Green

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

75 Fortis Green, Haringey, London, N2 9JD (020) 8883 0831

Provided and run by:
Rethink Mental Illness

All Inspections

24 August 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 24 August 2015. The inspection was unannounced. Fortis Green is a recovery house, run by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, also known as Rethink Mental Illness, where up to seven people who are experiencing a mental health crisis can stay for a short period for support. The service is located in a large terraced house, on two floors with access to a front and back garden.

At our last inspection on12 November 2013 the service was found to be meeting the regulations we looked at, but there was no registered manager. There is now 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.

All referrals to Fortis Green are made by the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust’s Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Teams (CRHT), who provide treatment to people during their stay at the service. Some people come to the recovery house after leaving hospital for further recovery and support before they return home.

People using the service informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided. They said that they were treated with dignity and respect and we observed good quality interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff were fully aware of people’s needs as a result of working with people using the service and information provided by the staff from the CRHT. People’s needs were carefully documented within detailed care plans.

Risk assessments had been carried out and these contained guidance for staff on protecting people. Most people felt safe in the home for the majority of the time, but some said that they were affected by the behaviours of other people using the service.

People’s health care needs were closely monitored and attended to. Staff were caring and knowledgeable regarding the individual care needs and preferences of people. The home had

arrangements for encouraging people to express their views and experiences regarding the care and management of the home. People’s preferences were recorded and arrangements were in place to ensure that these were responded to.

The home had an activities programme but did not always provide a varied range of activities or adequate information regarding local community resources so people could access adequate social, leisure and therapeutic stimulation.

Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with training, but lacked training in some identified areas to enable them to care effectively for people. Staff had the necessary support and supervision from their managers. They knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse. There were enough staff to meet people's needs.

The home had comprehensive arrangements for quality assurance. Regular audits and checks had been carried out by senior staff. We found the premises were clean and tidy. The home had an infection control policy and measures were in place for infection control. There was a record of essential inspections and maintenance carried out. However sometimes people had to wait for repairs to be made to their environment.

The CRHT took responsibility for the distribution of medicines and undertook risk assessments about people’s ability to manage their own medicines. The necessary documentation was in place and suitable storage of medicines was provided.

At this inspection there was one breach of regulation in relation to risk assessing the impact of people’s behaviours on others using the service, and we have made a recommendation relating to staff understanding of the complaints procedure. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

12 November 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection there were seven people at Fortis Green recovery house. We spoke with two people. We looked around the premises and also spoke with the staff on duty and looked at some of the relevant paperwork. People told us they felt respected at Fortis Green. One person said "I feel they [staff at Fortis Green] respect and listen to me."

We saw that people had signed their support and recovery plans and had had input into their risk assessments and risk management plans which were called Safety Plans. This was demonstrated by people signing them. Staff we spoke with explained that they sought consent to provide relevant care and assistance to people.

Care planning documentation was up to date and we saw that it showed that people were involved in planning their care as their comments and preferences were indicated. People had opportunities to choose what they did during the day.

We looked around the premises and saw that care was provided in a clean and hygienic environment. We saw that there were regular audits of the levels of cleanliness and staff had cleaning schedules to ensure that cleaning was undertaken regularly and effectively.

There were enough staff for the service. We checked previous rotas to ensure that staffing levels were adequate. There was no registered manager for this service, however, at the time of the inspection, the acting manager had completed an application to become the registered manager.

We found that there were robust systems to ensure that people were able to provide feedback to the service. Incidents were logged and action plans were developed as appropriate. People completed surveys about their stay when they left. We checked the feedback forms from these surveys.

19 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection as a follow up to a previous inspection where we had identified concerns. We spoke with two people who used the service and with two members of staff and the regional manager of the service. Most people we spoke with said they felt safe and well at the recovery house. One person told us "it's very nice", and another person told us "I don't find any faults".

People were able to have an input into their care plan and make decisions about how they wanted to be supported and these were acted on. We looked at risk assessments and risk management plans and saw that people had been involved in writing them.

We looked at the records and management for medication and found that medication was stored appropriately. We read documents which the service held about people and found that they were kept up to date.

14 March 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were very happy with the support they received from the recovery house staff. They described the staff as "friendly and helpful." One person said staff were "A lovely bunch of people" and "very friendly." Everybody was very satisfied with the care and support they had received there.

We found that staff supported people well and treated them with respect. We found that practices around medication did not fully protect people from risk as people's medicines were not always stored securely and decisions about self medication were not always clearly recorded.

Records relating to supporting people to be safe, which included risk assessments and risk management plans, had improved over recent months but were not yet comprehensive for every person.

31 October 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection there were seven people staying at the service. We spoke to five people individually. People told us they felt safe and that staff were supportive to them. One person said, "it is very well run here." One person said, "Nothing is too much trouble for them. They are always there, always asking how you feel." People said staff respected their wishes and were always available 24 hours a day if they needed emotional support. People who have used this service said that they were on the whole very satisfied with the Rethink staff and happy with the way they were cared for.