Archived: London Borough of Richmond upon Thames - 11 Munster Road

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that people were well treated and with dignity and respect by staff throughout our inspection visit. The London Borough of Richmond provided the service and staff care practices mirrored their dignity and respect and equality and diversity policies, procedures and training. There were also robust safeguarding procedures in place that staff understood and had received training in. People told us they felt safe. A sample of 3 people's support plans recorded specific areas or circumstances when people may be particularly vulnerable.

There were thorough quality assurance systems to ensure that managers and staff were able to learn from events including accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced risks to people and promoted the opportunity for service improvement.

The home had effective policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Currently no applications were required for submission. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded.

The staff said they worked flexibly as a team and the rota reflected this, taking people's individual care needs and routines into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This ensured that people's needs were always met.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. No staff were subject to current disciplinary action.

Is the service effective?

A sample of 3 people's care support plans included health and social care information that was split into 2 files per person with a file focussing on each aspect. The care support plans were thorough, updated to reflect changing needs, current, although some of the goals were long standing based on people's hobbies and interests and there was written evidence that the people's care was appropriately reviewed. Information included likes and dislikes, hobbies and interests and specialist health, dietary, mobility and equipment requirements. One goal was for a person to purchase and learn how to use a mobile phone. The purchase and progress were documented. People said "I'm going to college by myself", "On Saturdays I go to the pictures and for a meal" and "I've got a keyworker and we look at my plans".

There was an advocacy service available if people required one and this meant that people could access additional support.

The home was well maintained and met their physical and social needs.

People told us and the policy and procedure showed that visitors were able to see people in private and visiting times were flexible to meet individual needs.

Is the service caring?

During our visit we saw that people were supported by well trained, attentive and caring staff. Staff were patient, encouraging and people were supported to make their own choices. People told us, 'Staff treat me well' and "I'm happy".

There were annual satisfaction surveys sent out centrally by the London Borough of Richmond who ran the service. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed and monthly house meetings took place. These were an opportunity for people to put forward their views, suggestions and opinions. One person said "We have house meetings".

People's preferences, interests, hobbies and diverse needs were recorded and updated within their care support plans that were person centred. Activities were also recorded in their individual daily notes books. This meant care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People were engaged in a range of activities at home and outside the service during our visit. They said that they were following their normal routines and this was reflected by the records kept. There were group and individual activities available based upon people's preferences and interests. The range of activities enabled people to take an active part in their local community.

People were aware of how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They said that any problems they had were generally sorted out on the spot or during house meetings . We looked at how complaints were investigated and found the system was satisfactory. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The home's management structure was incorporated within that of Richmond Council and there was a clear management chain that outlined specific areas of responsibility and culpability. The home's management team was pro-active, listened to their needs, opinions and acted upon them. The service worked well with other agencies and services as reflected in the in depth accompanying 'Hospital passport' information provided by the home if people had to visit hospital, correspondence with GPs and interaction with community based services.

They told us that staff treated them well and there were enough staff to support them. "I like chatting with staff".

They said they liked living at Munster Road and their rooms. "I do some weeding in the garden".

They also told us they were asked what they thought about the home and that the staff were very good. One person said "I like living here, the staff are nice".

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect during our visit.

They were supported to make decisions and their opinions sought in a relaxed, unhurried and comfortable way.

The records we saw were generally up to date or being updated as the home was updating its support plan system.

The home was clean, tidy and well maintained although the kitchen cupboard doors were peeling and required attention.

There was a complaints policy and procedure that was easy for people to understand and access.

There were suitable numbers of staff on duty and rostered who were competent, experienced and knew people using the service well.