Archived: Elmgrove House

Updated 23 February 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

Why we inspected – This was a routine inspection as we had rated the service “Good” 24 months ago. We aim to return to services rated “Good” within two years of the publication of the report.

Since our last inspection the provider had informed us of four allegations of abuse against people who used the service. Two of these did not constitute abuse, and a further allegation concerned abuse by a third party. One allegation concerned abuse carried out by another person who used the service. We looked at how this was addressed by the provider and lessons learned as part of this inspection.

This inspection took place on 10 and 11 January and was unannounced on the first day; the provider knew we would be returning on the second day. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, this included notifications of serious incidents the provider is required to tell us about. We asked the provider to complete a provider information return (PIR) which is a document for providers to tell us what is going well and how they intend to develop the service. In carrying out this inspection we looked at records of care for three people, medicines management for four people and records of recruitment and supervision for three care workers. We looked at records relating to the management of the service such as allocation sheets, handover documents and checks managers carried out of the service. We spoke with the registered manager, an assistant director, support officer, one care worker, night manager, activities co-ordinator and a care and support compliance manager. We spoke with two people who used the service and four relatives, and carried out observations of activities and a communal meal.

Updated 23 February 2018

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 10 and 11 January 2018. At our last inspection on 20 and 22 October 2015 we rated this service “Good”. At this inspection we found the service remained “Good”.

Elmgrove House is managed by Notting Hill Housing and provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

People using the service lived in one of 14 bedsits in a purpose-built, three-storey building in Hammersmith. Each floor contained a shared kitchen and lounge which were also used for activities. Not everyone using Elmgrove House receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people using the service including one person who was in hospital, of which eight people received the regulated activity of personal care.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since April 2017 and registered since August 2017. 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.

People had care plans which were developed in line with their needs and reviewed regularly. Care plans were used to draw up clear schedules for care workers each day which were checked during handover to ensure people had the right care. There were systems agreed with the local authority to vary people’s hours on a weekly basis to meet their changing needs.

There were varied and interesting activity groups and people usually chose to eat together in a communal dining room. People received support to get enough to eat and drink and staff took action when people were at risk of weight loss or malnutrition.

The provider was meeting its responsibilities to obtain consent to care and assess people’s capacity to make decisions. Where relatives consented on behalf of people there was evidence that they had the authority to do so. Complaints were addressed by managers who had systems to respond promptly to straightforward concerns. People were positive about the caring and kind nature of staff and we saw examples of people given reassurance and staff tending promptly to concerns.

The provider had risk management plans in place, for example to address falls and promptly sought medical attention when people were unwell. Staff were recruited in line with safer recruitment processes and an interview process that checked that they had the right understanding of their roles. Staff received appropriate training and supervision to carry out their roles. There were processes to safeguard people from abuse, and medicines were safely managed. When things had gone wrong the provider took action, including discussing what had been learned and how problems could be avoided in future.

The provider told us they intended to merge with another provider later in the year. This means that this location will be archived at this time and registered under the new, merged provider. We will aim to return to this service within 12 months of registration.