• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Princess Louise Nursing Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Pangbourne Avenue, London, W10 6DH (020) 8962 6106

Provided and run by:
Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust

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

All Inspections

16 March 2015

During a routine inspection

We conducted an unannounced inspection of Princess Louise Nursing Home on 16 March 2015. The service provides care and nursing services for up to 51 adults with continuing health care needs, including adults with dementia. There were 39 people using the service when we visited.

At our last inspection on 28 November 2013 the service met the regulations we inspected.

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.

The service had a procedure for safeguarding adults from abuse and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. The manager and staff had received training on safeguarding adults within the last year and were able to explain the possible signs of abuse as well as the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns.

Risk assessments did not consistently provide enough guidance on people’s individual needs. We found some risk assessments did not contain up to date, accurate information.

Staff received advanced life support training and were able to explain how they would respond to a medical emergency which included accurate recording and reporting of matters.

There were enough, safely recruited staff available to meet people’s needs. Staffing numbers were adjusted depending on people’s requirements.

Medicines were managed safely. Records were kept when medicines were administered, and appropriate checks were undertaken by staff and external pharmacist and pharmacy technician. Records were clear and accurate and regular auditing of medicines was undertaken.

Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is a law to protect people who do not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities and applied the principles of the Act to protect individuals who did not have the capacity to consent to their care and treatment. However, people's records did not always clearly document how decisions had been made in their best interests.

We did not see evidence that people and their relatives were consistently involved in decisions about their care and how their needs were met. Some care plans did not include information from people’s perspectives about the type of care they wanted and some were not signed by people.

There was an induction programme for new staff, which prepared them for their role. Staff were provided with a range of ongoing training to help them carry out their duties. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal to support them to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to eat and drink a balanced diet that they enjoyed and their nutritional needs were monitored. People were supported effectively with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals.

People told us staff treated them in a caring and respectful way. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, but we observed mixed interactions between people and staff throughout our visit. Some staff members did not interact with people when providing them with care.

Staff and people who used the service felt able to speak with the registered manager. They knew how to make complaints and there was an effective complaints policy and procedure in place. We found complaints were dealt with appropriately and in accordance with the policy.

The service carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of the service and to plan improvements. Where concerns were identified action plans were put in place to rectify these. Records audits were completed, however, these had not addressed the issues found during our inspection.

Staff worked with other organisations and healthcare professionals to implement best practice. This included their GP, physiotherapists, dietitians and occupational therapists.

28 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to six people using the service who were able to communicate with us. One person said she was told "what goes on" before she arrived at the home. Another person, when asked whether she was able to have a say in how her care and treatment was delivered, said "they're very good like that". Throughout the inspection we observed numerous examples where people were treated in a kind and sympathetic fashion by staff members. They were observed to provide appropriate support whilst encouraging people to look after themselves and remain independent. They displayed a patient and caring attitude throughout all observations.

On admission people would undergo a full assessment to identify what care, treatment and support they needed and these were used to draw up detailed care plans which were agreed with the person in question or their family. One person told us that they could not "find any fault" and that they were "quite satisfied" with the service they received. Another person told us that the care was "100% ok" and another told us that they felt safe using the service. All of the people we spoke to were positive about the quality of care, support and treatment they received.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

There was an effective complaints system available.

15 November 2012

During a routine inspection

People using the service said that they were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support, and staff sought people's consent before providing it. When there were concerns about someone's capacity to make decisions, these were appropriately reported and acted on in line with legal requirements.

Appropriate medical and social information was taken from people when they started using the service and risk assessments were undertaken to ensure that they were safe when doing so. There were policies and procedures for what to do in a medical emergency which staff were aware of. People told us that the service was "alright" and one person told us that staff were "looking after me quite good".

Staff were trained annually in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise signs of possible abuse. They knew how to report abuse appropriately, including to the local authority. The home did not use physical restraint and staff had been trained in conflict resolution.

All staff received an induction to the service and appropriate training on an annual basis. They had annual appraisals where performance was discussed and development targets were set for the forthcoming year. Arrangements had been put in place for staff to receive ongoing supervisions.

The service sought feedback from people and their relatives through surveys and meetings. They conducted regular audits into the safety and health of people using the service.

17 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People who use the service said they felt supported. People said that they found the staff approachable and involved them in their care. The relatives of people using the service said they were able to ask questions and discuss with staff the care being provided.

People who use the service were not familiar with a care plan, but were able to talk with staff about their care. People said they receive the personal and health care support they need.

People who use the service said that they would talk with the nurse in charge or the manager if they had a concern. People said that they felt safe.