The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: St Johns Wood Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

48 Boundary Road, St John's Wood, London, NW8 0HT

Provided and run by:
Life Style Care (2011) plc

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

08 August 2014

During a routine inspection

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looked at the overall quality of the service.

We undertook an unannounced inspection of St John’s Wood Care Centre on 8 August 2014. St John’s Wood Care Centre is a home in Camden providing residential and nursing care for up to 100 people. The people who use the service have a variety of care needs. The service supports older people, who may have dementia, as well as people with learning and physical disabilities.

At our last inspection on 7 March 2013 the service met the regulations inspected.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since December 2010. 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.

Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Managers and staff had received training on safeguarding adults, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Medicines were being managed safely.

People were supported to eat and drink. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs.

Assessments were undertaken to identify people’s health and support needs and any risks to people who used the service and others. Plans were in place to reduce the risks identified. Care plans were developed with people who used the service to identify how they wished to be supported.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people’s preferences, likes and dislikes regarding their care and support needs.

People received individualised support that met their needs. The service had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from risks associated with their support, and care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences.

People using the service, relatives and staff said the manager was approachable and supportive. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and people and relatives felt confident to express any concerns, so these could be addressed.

7 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with three people who used the service, five staff members, and two relatives of the people using the service. We also observed staff interaction with people in the communal areas and in bedrooms. We reviewed five care files.

All the people we spoke with were satisfied with the care and treatment provided at the home. A relative of a person who used the service said, "The service is very good". Another person told us that their relative was 'well cared for'. We observed that people were supported with their meals and activities. We noted that care plans were updated, risk assessments completed, and people's representatives were involved.

The home had arrangements in place to ensure that staff had appropriate training and support which enable them to meet people's needs.

20, 27 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We spoke with 13 people who used the service and 11 friends or relatives who visited them. We also spoke with and observed staff when they were caring for people in the lounge areas and during lunch times. We checked people's records and spoke with the person in charge at the time of our visits.

People were positive about the service provided by the home. For example, one visitor said, "[The person who used the service] gets what [they] want]". A visitor told us that a person who used the service "is treated well [at the home]". People's files showed their needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. However, we observed some staff not responding appropriately to people's needs in lounge and in one of the dining rooms. We asked the provider to let us know the action they have put in place to address this issue.

The service had adult safeguarding procedures in place and there was evidence that staff had attended training on safeguarding adults. We noted that appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the recording and administering of most medicines.

8, 18 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with fifteen people using the service and some of their relatives and friends who were visiting them. We looked at records regarding people's care and support and other records relating to the service. We also spoke with the home's manager and several members of staff. We observed care and support being provided throughout the home on both visits.

People using the service were involved in the regular assessment and review of their care and support needs. People were generally happy with the quality of the service provided, stating that workers were polite and treated them with respect. One person said the staff were 'very nice' and that they 'do everything for me.' A friend said 'the care people are very kind.' A relative said 'they are so gentle.'

We saw positive, warm and friendly interaction between workers and people using the service.

We noted that the records relating to the care and support people received were lengthy and very detailed. In some cases this made it less easy to assess the care being provided. Some staff members said that working with such detailed records was on occasions very time-consuming.

We saw that workers were given appropriate induction training and assessment and ongoing training and support. The provider had effective systems for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service and dealt appropriately with complaints.

19 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People told us that they were provided with a good standard of care at the home and that they had a say in how they were cared for. They said they felt safe in the home and praised the staff who provided their care.