The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ronak Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

120 Aldermans Hill, Palmers Green, London, N13 4PT (020) 8447 9105

Provided and run by:
M.H.J. Crausaz Limited

All Inspections

28 August 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 28 August 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in December 2014 we found breaches of the legal requirements. This was because there was medicines were not being managed safely. People worked risk of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care and support as there had not been an assessment of their capacity to make decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Verbal complaints had not been recorded by the provider and they were not able to show how they had responded to these complaints. Care plan audits had not been carried out and this meant that where people's needs had changed this had not been recorded in their care plans. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and that they now met the previous legal breaches.

Ronak Home provides accommodation, care and support for ten people with a learning disability or people on the autistic spectrum. There were 9 people using the service on the day of our inspection.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Staff understood people’s rights to make choices about their care and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

There was an accessible complaints policy which the registered manager followed when complaints were made to ensure they were investigated and responded to appropriately.

Staff were available in sufficient numbers meet people's needs. Staff knew how to keep people safe. Staff knew how to identify abuse and the correct procedures to follow if they suspected that abuse had occurred.

People were kept safe from the risk of abuse. Risks to people were identified and staff took action to reduce those risks. People were provided with a choice of food.

There were systems in place to ensure that people consistently received their medicines safely, and as prescribed.

Care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences. Staff understood people’s preferences, likes and dislikes regarding their care and support needs.

People were treated with dignity and respect. People using the service, relatives and staff said the registered manager was approachable and supportive. Monthly audits were carried out across various aspects of the service, these included the administration of medication, care planning and training and development. Where these audits identified that improvements were needed action had been taken to improve the service for people.

12 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 12 December 2014 and was unannounced. When we last visited the home on 31 January 2014 we found the service met all the regulations we looked at.

Ronak Home provides accommodation, care and support for ten people with a learning disability or people on the autistic spectrum.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Medicines were not managed safely. There were gaps in the recording of medicines when they were given to people.

Staff did not understand what to do if people could not make decisions about their care needs as assessments of people’s capacity had not been carried out.

People’s complaints had not been responded to or action taken to resolve them.

The registered manager had not carried out regular audits of complaints, care plans and medicines administration.

Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. People using the service, relatives and staff said the manager was approachable and supportive.

People were provided with a choice of food, and were supported to eat when required. People were not always supported effectively to meet their health needs.

Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

At this inspection we found breaches of regulations in relation to medicines management, consent to care and treatment, complaints and quality assurance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

31 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People were routinely asked for their consent to care and treatment. People who were unable to make decisions were supported by their families or through a legal process to make decisions in their best interest. Relatives told us that they were always kept informed and "they always ask us to sign."

People were cared for according to the plans made with them, their families and other professionals. People had a choice about how they were supported and told us that they choose what they want to eat and what they wanted to do with their day.

There were plans in place for emergencies and staff knew who and how to contact managers in such situations. Staff said that they felt supported by the manager and that they were happy working as a team.

People said that they felt safe and relatives told us that they had no concerns about the home. The home had a system in place to check that the care and treatment people received was safe and met their needs.

1 March 2013

During a routine inspection

When we inspected, there were eight people using the service and two vacancies. We spoke with two people using the service who told us they liked living in the home and that the staff were kind and helpful. Their comments included "I like it here. I like my room and I can listen to my music' and "I like living here, I get on with everyone.'

We spoke with the relatives of two people using the service who told us they were able to visit the home before their relatives moved in and they felt people were well cared for. Their comments included 'we visit all the time and we've never had any worries' and 'I'm sure my [relative] is safe there and I don't have to worry.'

Staff supported people in a professional and friendly way. They respected people's privacy and dignity and offered choices. We spoke with four staff who were able to tell us how they maintained people's dignity, respected their privacy and gave them choices throughout the day. They also told us they felt supported and well trained. Their comments included "it's a good place to work, I've done all the mandatory training and we are offered other training if it's needed." Staff were aware of the risk of abuse and gave appropriate answers when we asked about how they would respond if they had concerns about a person using the service.

The provider had systems in place for recruiting suitable staff to work in the home and managing any complaints received from people using the service or other people.

23 November 2010

During a routine inspection

We observed that staff treated people as individuals, knowing how to communicate with them. We saw that staff responded to what people told them, and involved them in decisions about their care. A relative told us when asked about the staff, "They treat the residents well." We observed that people were getting the care they needed. We spoke with a number of relatives. They told us that the home involves them in decisions about people's care. A relative said, 'I have met with the manager and our social worker to talk about how the home is helping my daughter." A relative, with whom we discussed the availability staff, told us that, 'My daughter needs a member of staff with her when she is out of the home. Someone is always available to do this." We observed that staff were available to support people to take part in a range of activities. Staff were available to engage with them on a one-to-one basis. We saw that people were able, with staff support, to go out to the shops and other local community activities.

We observed that staff understood how to meet the needs of people. People were helped to access community services such as General Practitioners. A Relative said, "The staff make sure that if needed my son sees his doctor." We observed that people got the food they wanted. A person told us the food was, "Good." We observed that people were able to make themselves a drink or a sandwich with staff support. A relative told us when asked about the food, "From what I've seen the food is good. They have encouraged my daughter to do some cooking." Relatives also told us that the home had been recently refurbished. We asked a relative about how the home's decoration has improved. He told us, "The home is much brighter and a nicer place to live."

Staff demonstrated that they understood the needs of people. We observed that staff were aware and knew how to communicate with people. A relative when asked about if staff knew how to meet the needs of people told us, "Staff have the know-how to give the care that residents need." People and relatives told us that the home listens and responds to suggestions they make about the home. We saw staff listening to people and asking for their views about things that matter to them. We observed that information about how to make a complaint was available around the home. The information was presented in a pictorial form in accessible language for people. We asked a relative about how quickly complaints were dealt with. The relative told us, "You don't have to wait long if you raise an issue. Sometimes you get a response the same day."