• Care Home
  • Care home

Support for Living Limited - 246 Haymill Close

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

246 Haymill close, Greenford, Middlesex, UB6 8EL (020) 8810 6699

Provided and run by:
Support for Living Limited

Report from 16 April 2024 assessment

Ratings

  • Overall

    Requires improvement

  • Safe

    Requires improvement

  • Effective

    Requires improvement

  • Caring

    Requires improvement

  • Responsive

    Requires improvement

  • Well-led

    Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Support for Living Limited – 246 Haymill Close is a care home for up to 7 adults with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of our assessment, 4 people were living at the service. The assessment started on 16 April 2024 and ended on 21 May 2024. We visited the service on 21 May 2024. We conducted the visit in relation to concerns we had received about safety. During the assessment we found the provider had responded to these concerns and worked with the local authority to make improvements. However, we identified other areas which required improvement. The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 21 June 2023). The service remains requires improvement. We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. The service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting all the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture. We identified breaches of 3 Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to person-centred care, dignity and respect and good governance. We also identified other areas where improvements were needed. We discussed these with senior managers, and they gave us assurances of the actions they were taking. We did not assess all quality statements at this inspection. For those areas we did not assess, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

People's experience of this service

Before we visited the service, we reviewed information we had received about the service from relatives, staff, and other stakeholders. We received feedback from the local authority commissioning team who were monitoring the service. This information helped us understand about people's experience. The visit was unannounced and was conducted by 2 inspectors. An Expert by Experience supported the assessment by making phone calls to relatives of people who lived at the service. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. During the visit we met all 4 people who lived at the service. People could not use words to tell us about their experiences. We observed how they were being cared for and supported. Our observations included the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We met staff on duty, who included support workers, senior support workers and a deputy manager. We also met a performance improvement manager, a senior manager from the organisation who was supporting the service. We spoke with 3 relatives on the telephone. Speaking with staff and relatives helped us to understand about people's experiences. We identified people did not always receive person-centred care and support. Staff did not always treat them as individuals or follow best practice guidance. This meant the provider's systems for monitoring the service did not always ensure people had a good quality of experience. Relatives liked some aspects of the service and felt people sometimes had opportunities to follow their interests. However, some relatives felt people were not always safely cared for and did not always have their needs met. People had good relationships with the staff.