Archived: London Mental Health Centre

Updated 4 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 14 & 28 June 2017and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We used this information to plan the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people living at the service, three care support workers, a healthcare professional involved with people who use the service, the registered manager and the provider.

We looked at seven care plans, five staff files, four medicine records. We also looked at audits, fire safety, complaints file and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 4 August 2017

The London Mental Health Centre is a care home that provides support to people with a mental health condition. The home can accommodate up to 15 people. At the time of the inspection there were 14 people using the service.

At the previous inspection on 23 April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People continued to be protected against harm and abuse because staff received on-going safeguarding training. Staff were able to identify the different types of abuse and how these may manifest in people’s behaviour. Identified risks were documented in comprehensive risk assessments which gave staff guidance on how to safely support people. Risks were monitored to minimise the risk of repeat incidents.

People’s medicine continued to be managed safely. The service had robust systems in place to ensure people’s medicines were stored, administered and recorded in line with good practice. People confirmed staff supported them to receive their medicines as prescribed.

The service maintained a core staff team enabling a consistent approach for people. Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people’s needs were met safely. Staff received on-going training and put their knowledge into practice. Staff received support and guidance from the registered manager and reflected on their working practices through regular supervisions and annual appraisals.

People’s care was delivered in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff sought people’s consent to care and treatment and respected their decisions. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People received support to ensure their dietary and nutritional needs were met in line with guidance from healthcare professionals. We received mixed feedback about the quality of food provided, this was raised with the registered manager and we were satisfied with their explanation. People’s health and wellbeing was monitored by staff and where deterioration in their mental health was identified, the appropriate healthcare professionals were contacted in a timely manner.

The service continued to encourage people to make decisions about their care. The service had an embedded culture of supporting people to maintain and where possible enhance their independence. Staff were aware of the importance of integration and supported people to access the local community without direct support when assessed.

People received support that was person centred and care plans were devised with their input. Care plans were regularly reviewed to reflect people’s changing needs and guidance from healthcare professionals was documented and encompassed in people’s care plans. People were not always aware of how to raise a complain, however the service encouraged people to share their views and complaints were monitored to minimise the risk of repeat incidents.

The registered manager was an active presence within the service. People found the registered manager approachable and told us he responded to their requests in a timely manner. The registered manager undertook audits of the service to drive improvement. Issues identified in the audits were acted on in a timely manner.