Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


146 Lower Robin Hood Lane, Chatham.

146 Lower Robin Hood Lane in Chatham is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 26th June 2019

146 Lower Robin Hood Lane is managed by Choice Support who are also responsible for 41 other locations

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-06-26
    Last Published 2016-10-27

Local Authority:

    Kent

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

11th August 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection was carried out on 11 August 2016. The inspection was unannounced. At the previous inspection on 26 and 27 May 2015 we made a number of recommendations relating to involving people with complex support needs in the choice of their food, and, staff deployment at mealtimes. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

146 Lower Robin Hood Lane provides accommodation for people who require personal care. The accommodation is a large bungalow providing support for up to five people with learning and physical disabilities and complex communication needs. Some people were not able to communicate using speech and used body language, signs and facial expressions to let staff know how they were feeling. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the service receiving support.

At the time of out inspection the manager had been in post since the previous registered manager had left the service to manage another of the provider’s homes in January 2016. The manager had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager. 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.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. At the time of the inspection, the manager had not applied for DoLS authorisations for people living at the service, however they had planned to and they had spoken to their line manager about this. People living at the service were under constant supervision from staff to keep them safe. We have made a recommendation about this.

The manager and the management team understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments and decisions made in people’s best interest were recorded. People were asked their consent before any care or support was given.

People told us they felt safe and observations showed that staff knew people well and understood their communication needs. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse, and they knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of financial abuse. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and measures put in place to manage any hazards identified. The premises were maintained and checked to help ensure the safety of people, staff and visitors. The fire risk assessment had not been reviewed by a qualified and competent person. We have made a recommendation about this.

People received their medicines safely and when they needed them. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe administration of medicines and staff had been trained to administer medicines safely. Medicine audits were regularly carried out by the manager and the assistant team leader.

There were enough staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff received the appropriate training to fulfil their role and provide the appropriate support. Staff were supported by the management team who they saw on a regular basis. Staff worked well as a team and felt supported by one another. Recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People were treated with kindness and respect. People’s needs had been assessed to identify the care they required. People’s individual care and support plans were person centred and gave staff the information and guidance they required to give people the right support. Detailed guidance was available for staff to follow to support people who displayed any behaviour which caused a risk to themselves or

3rd October 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

23rd July 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. One person said, "Staff support me to the doctor regularly”.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We spoke with one person who used the service about their experience of living in the home. The person commented, "Yes, I like living here”. “I am happy here” and “I like my friend X to visit me regularly here”.

People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

Staff records and other records relevant to the management of the service were accurate and fit for purpose.

7th February 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with one person who told us that they liked living at Lower Robin Hood Road and that the staff helped them a lot. They told us they were able to go out in their cars to local centres and on trips to France.

We observed the staff were kind and respectful to the people. In our discussions with staff they demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the people living at the service and how to focus care around their specific needs.

Care records were out of date and recorded in inappropriate ways. We could not be sure that the care records reflected a good standard of care was being provided, though we observed the care and interaction to be respectful and kind. We found that staff obtained verbal consent but there was insufficient written consent on the files.

Staff spoken with demonstrated a good understanding of how to safeguard people from harm and were confident to take appropriate action. Training records showed that staff received regular training on protecting people from abuse and the Mental Capacity Act.

We could not find evidence that the provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the service. We saw that the home had not had an internal audit for five months and the poor record keeping had not been identified within those audits.

6th December 2011 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Not all of the people who used this service were able to communicate verbally; however, they were all able to show that they were happy. Some people were able to tell us that they liked living in the home and that they enjoyed their food, liked the staff and were looking forward to Christmas. Observation showed that staff interacted well with the people who used this service and had established effective means of verbal and non-verbal communication.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection was carried out on 26 and 27 May 2015 and was unannounced.

The service provided accommodation for people who require nursing or personal care. The accommodation was a large bungalow providing support to five people with learning disabilities. There were five people living in the service when we inspected.

There was a registered manager employed at the service. 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.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. The registered manager showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS. Mental capacity assessments and decisions made in people’s best interest were recorded. At the time of the inspection the registered manager had applied for DoLS for one person, using the support of the local authority DoLS team.

There was not always sufficient staff deployed at busy times to meet people’s needs in some situations, especially at mealtimes.

People told us and indicated that they felt safe. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse, and they knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. The management team had access to, and understood the safeguarding policies of the local authority.

People received their medicines safely and when they needed them. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe administration of medicines and staff had been trained to administer medicines safely.

People’s health was monitored and when it was necessary, health care professionals were involved to make sure people remained as healthy as possible.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the service with involvement from family members, health professionals and the person’s funding authority. Care plans contained detailed information and clear guidance about all aspects of a person’s health, social and personal care needs to enable staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff had learned to communicate effectively with people in non-verbal ways, and to interpret their expressions and behaviours to establish their mood or what they were trying to communicate.

Potential risks to people in their everyday lives had been identified, and, had been assessed in relation to the impact that it had on people.

People’s food and drink consumption had been recorded on a daily basis. Staff knew when and how to make a referral to a healthcare professional if they had concerns about a person. However people with complex support needs were not actively engaged with making choices about meals.

Recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

Policies and procedures were in place for the registered manager to follow if staff were not fulfilling their job role.

Staff were not always considerate and respectful when speaking about people. Staff knew people very well, with many staff having worked at the service for a number of years. There was a relaxed atmosphere in the service between people and staff. Health professionals told us the staff team were welcoming and understood the needs of people well.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal, so they were supported to carry out their roles. People were supported by staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

The registered manager ensured that they had planned for unforeseeable emergencies, so that should they happen people’s care needs would continue to be met. The premises were maintained and checked to help ensure the safety of people, staff and visitors.

There were systems in place to review accident and incidents, which were able to detect and alert the registered manager to any patterns or trends that had developed.

The complaints procedure was readily available in a format that was accessible to some people who used the service. Staff knew people well and were able to recognise signs of anxiety or upset through behaviours and body language.

People felt that the service was well led. They told us that managers were approachable and listened to their views. The registered manager of the service and other senior managers provided good leadership. This was reflected in the positive feedback given about the service by the people who experienced care from them.

We recommend that the registered manager looks at the deployment of staff at mealtimes.

We recommend that the service considers current best practice guidance for supporting and involving people with complex communication needs.

 

 

Latest Additions: