Archived: 229 Mitcham Lane Limited - 99 Sunnyhill Road

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and staff supporting them and from looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

Staff were trained in their roles. Risk assessments were completed for people and management plans in place to minimise such risks. Individual crisis plans were in place for people, which enabled staff to identify signs of relapse in people's mental health. Incidents and accidents were recorded and lessons learnt from them were incorporated into new risk assessments. Medicines were handled safely. People using the service told us they felt safe living at the home.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in planning their care, support and treatment. The provider cooperated with other health professionals in the planning and coordination of people's care and treatment. People were supported to access health and community services as required. People's support plans were tailored to reflect their individual needs and the outcomes they wanted to achieve. These were also reviewed to reflect people's changing needs.

Is the service caring?

Staff understood the needs of people they supported. They treated people with dignity and respect. Staff showed understanding of the needs of people they supported and their different circumstances. Interactions between people and staff were positive and open.

Is the service responsive?

People were supported to participate in activities within and outside the home. There was effective joint working partnership between the home and other professionals to ensure the service responded to people's needs. People were supported to develop new skills to enable them move on to more independent accommodation. Reviews took place regularly to monitor people's progress.

Is the service well-led?

Staff were supported and trained adequately in their roles. Staff understood their job roles and the aims of the services. People told us that the provider listened to them and acted on their feedback. Daily handover meetings took place where the quality of service was discussed. The provider had systems in place to gather feedback about the service.

We spoke with three mental health professionals involved in the care of people using the service, they spoke positively about the support people received and of them moving on successfully after a period of admission in the home. Their comments to us included, "The staff are helpful and they have kept us up to date with what is going on for people". Another care coordinator told us "the provider and staff have worked in innovative ways to get the best outcomes for people, a person who experienced frequent relapses in their mental health which lead to their homelessness has been enabled to remain stable and avoid hospital readmission since using the service".

A care coordinator involved with people using the service said "staff are very creative, they have clear boundaries which assist people overcome obstacles, staff are firm but kind, they work with people in a caring and respectful way"

A person who recently moved in to the home told us they found the placement was comfortable and staff easy to speak to.

A person spoken with said "The place is friendly and I am at ease using the kitchen and going out in the local community".

A stakeholder spoken with said "Some people placed at the home made good progress and had not needed hospital readmission; they accepted the support provided by staff and developed more practical skills".

A mental health professional told us of persons using the service receiving support that was appropriate to their needs and as a result had successfully achieved compliance with prescribed medication.

We found many positive aspects of the service however there were shortfalls in three essential standards. The interior of the premises was displaying signs of wear and tear and this detracted from the comfortable environment. The provider had not developed an effective quality monitoring system to evaluate and improve the quality of the service and records were not well maintained and to the standards required.