Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Care Management Group - 374 St Helier Avenue, Morden.

Care Management Group - 374 St Helier Avenue in Morden 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 7th March 2019

Care Management Group - 374 St Helier Avenue is managed by Care Management Group Limited who are also responsible for 128 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Care Management Group - 374 St Helier Avenue
      374 St Helier Avenue
      Morden
      SM4 6JU
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      02086480661
    Website:

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 2019-03-07
    Last Published 2019-03-07

Local Authority:

    Merton

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.

4th February 2019 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

374, St Helier Avenue provides care and accommodation for up to eight people living with learning disabilities, some with communication difficulties.

At our last inspection in July 2016 we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe living at the home and spoke positively about the care provided and the commitment of staff. Staff knew how to protect people if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or harm. Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed and staff knew how to minimise and manage identified hazards to help keep people safe from harm or injury.

Appropriate staff recruitment processes helped to ensure people were protected. We saw there were enough properly trained and well supported staff to meet people’s needs and staff confirmed they were happy with the training and support they received.

People received their medicines as prescribed and staff knew how to manage medicines safely.

Relatives told us people received effective care. Staff had access to a wide range of training and they were supported with regular and structured supervision.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS provides a process to make sure people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way. The service ensured local authorities had carried out the appropriate assessments for people who might have been deprived of their liberty. Staff supported people to make choices and decisions about their care wherever they had the capacity to do so.

People were supported to have a varied and balanced diet and food that they enjoyed, were consulted about their choice of meals and were enabled to eat and drink well and stay healthy.

Staff supported people to keep healthy and well through regular monitoring of their health and wellbeing.

Relatives told us staff were kind and caring. We saw that staff treated people with dignity, respect and compassion. Staff understood people’s needs and helped them to express their views and wishes wherever possible.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them. Relatives told us they were made to feel welcome when they visited the home and that the staff were supportive in enabling people to visit relatives.

Care plans were in place which reflected people’s specific needs and their individual choices. Relatives of people were involved in reviewing their relations’ care plans and we saw people were supported to make decisions about their care and support.

People had access to their local community and could choose to participate in a variety of in-house and community based social activities. Staff encouraged and supported people to be as independent as they could and wanted to be.

People and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback on the service and there was an effective complaints system in place.

People told us they liked the staff and registered manager. Staff told us they felt supported by the good leadership of the senior staff and relatives told us that the registered manager encouraged feedback and sought to develop and improve the service for people.

Staff told us they enjoyed working in a home which encouraged openness and teamwork. Staff were clear about their roles and r

14th July 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 14 July 2016 and was unannounced.

374, St Helier Avenue provides care and accommodation for up to eight people and there were seven people living at the home when we inspected. These people were all living with learning disabilities some of whom were unable to communicate with us due to their complex needs.

The service had a 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.

People and relatives told us they felt safe at the home.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse.

Care records showed any risks to people were assessed and there was guidance to staff of how those risks should be managed to prevent any risk of harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff recruitment procedures ensured only those staff suitable to work in a care setting were employed.

People received their medicines safely.

People’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment was assessed and decisions were made in their best interests and in line with relevant legislation. We saw appropriate applications were made for people to the local authority for assessments under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and for Deprivation of their Liberty where it was necessary.

People’s support plans described the support they needed to manage their health needs. People had regular health checks with their GPs and other healthcare professionals.

People and their relatives told us that staff were caring and kind to them. Staff were observed to treat people with kindness and dignity. People were able to exercise choice in how they spent their time. Staff took time to consult with people before providing care and showed they cared about the people in the home.

Care was arranged to meet people’s needs and provided in a way they preferred. Care plans were individualised and they reflected what support each person needed and what they were able to do for themselves. We saw people were assisted with engaging in their chosen social activities. Care plans were reviewed as people’s needs changed or every three months.

There was in place an appropriate complaints procedure that people and their relatives knew about and felt confident to use. We reviewed the home’s complaints records and we saw the provider responded to concerns and complaints and learnt from the issues raised.

There were good systems in place to monitor the care provided and people's views and opinions were sought regularly. Suggestions for change were listened to and actions taken to improve the service provided.

6th August 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

At the time of this inspection there were seven people living in this home. All of the people had learning disabilities and did not have the ability to communicate verbally except in a limited capacity. We met four people and to two relatives; two support workers or staff; the manager and area manager. We reviewed four people's care plans and four staff files.

Was the service safe?

People told us that they felt safe living at 374, St. Helier Avenue. The two relatives of the people who we spoke with said that they thought people were safe, that they were protected from abuse and that their rights were respected and upheld. One person said, “I have no issues with this at all, they are safe and I have never seen anything to make me concerned.” Another person said, “Yes they are safe and sound”.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. There were mechanisms in place to help to safeguard people from the risks of abuse. People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust to ensure that only suitable people were employed.

Is the service caring?

People were assisted by kind and supportive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and professionalism and gave appropriate encouragement when supporting people. Those people who were able to said the staff treated them well and respected their wishes, dignity and privacy. Relatives of people living in the home were very positive about the care given to people. One person (talking about their relative and the staff) said, “They understand each other and they care for him. They listen to what he indicates he needs. They do not force him to do anything he does not want to do; if he wants to spend the day in his room that’s fine with them. They let him have choices; he is involved in planning his activities and in planning the menu”. We observed that staff knocked on doors before entering people’s rooms and asked if it was convenient for them to go in. This reflected the caring environment that we found on the day of the inspection.

Is the service responsive?

The way in which care should be provided was set out clearly in care plans and we saw that care was delivered in line with this. Relatives of people who use the services told us that if a person’s needs changed, their care and support was tailored to those changed needs. We saw that care plans were reviewed regularly and changed appropriately. This was important as this helped staff understand what people wanted or needed or how they were feeling.

All the people we spoke with knew how to make a complaint. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place and discussions we had with relatives and staff indicated that they would be supportive of anyone who needed to complain. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service effective?

People's needs and potential risks were regularly assessed. Care plans were "person-centred" focusing on people's individual needs. We found that care was delivered in line with these care plans.

People’s health and care needs were assessed together with them or their relatives or representatives and they were involved in their care and support planning. All the risk assessments and care plans that we saw had been signed by people indicating their agreement with what was written down. People told us that they had been involved in the planning of their care and support and that it reflected their needs. One person said, “Staff explained to me what was in my care plan”. We inspected four people’s care files. They included essential information about the person, needs and risk assessment information, care plans and records of health care appointments.

Is the service well-led?

Systems were in place to effectively assess and manage risks in relation to people's health, safety and welfare. There was an effective quality assurance process in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of services that people received.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance processes that were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

The manager told us that they have applied to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to be registered as the manager for this home and that they have already had the "fit person" interview. This indicates the process of registering as a manager is well underway.

3rd April 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

On the day of our inspection there were eight people living at Care Management Group – 374 St Helier Avenue on a permanent basis.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because most of the people who lived at this care home had complex needs, which meant they were not always able to communicate with us. The people who did speak with us all said that they were happy living at the home. We received positive responses from people about the staff who cared for them, one person told us “the staff are nice, I like living here”.

We were able to observe that people's experience of the service was a positive one. During our inspection we saw staff always treated people with respect and dignity and people were supported to make informed decisions about how they lived their lives. We also gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by speaking to the registered manager and other staff who worked in the home and reviewing various records the provider is required to keep.

We saw that polices and procedures had been put in place to ensure the safety and well being of people using the service and we saw evidence of a robust quality assurance system regularly monitored by the provider.

18th April 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because not everyone who lives at this care home were able to verbally communicate with us in a meaningful way. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by speaking with four individuals who lived at 374 St Helier Avenue, observing the way support staff interacted with everyone who used the service and by using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our previous inspections of this service, the last of which we carried out in 2009, indicated that the care home had been through an unusually high number of temporary acting managers in a very short period of time. The services current registered manager confirmed that in the three years preceding their appointment around half a dozen or so different people had been in day-to-day charge of the care home for varying lengths of time. The uncertainty of the management situation at the care home inevitably raised a number of problems for the support staff below the manager who have been relied upon to ensure the consistency of service delivery during this long period of interrupted management.

It was therefore positively noted that the services current manager had been in post for two years, is suitably qualified and experienced, and had recently passed a 'fit' person interview with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the care homes registered manager. The two support staff we spoke with were very complimentary about the professional and inclusive leadership style of the newly registered manager. These staff also told us the registered manager had brought some much needed stability and continuity to the care home. Typical feedback we received from these support staff, included: “The service has been run much better in the past couple of years since the arrival of the manager”, “We were well overdue a bit of stability here”, and “The manager is great, very approachable and always on hand to offer advice”.

The feedback we received from four people who use the service was very complimentary about the standard of care and support they received at 374 St Helier Avenue. Typical comments made by the people we met, included: “I like living here” and “I cannot think of anything bad to say about the place or the staff who work here”.

All the people we spoke with during our visit all told us they understood the care and support choices available to them and were able to make informed choices about how they lived their lives. We also found evidence that demonstrated to us that people who use the service were given appropriate information regarding the care and support they could expect to be receive at 374 St Helier Avenue. Typical comments made by people we met, included: “We have meetings here every week to decide what meals we want to eat”, “Staff make me Italian food and curry sometimes when I ask them too, which are my favourites”, and “I chose the colour my bedroom was painted”.

All the people we spoke with told us they were able to have their say and influence how their home was run. Typical feedback we received from people we met, included: “We have lots of meetings here to talk about holidays and food we can eat” and “We talk about activities we like doing and what we like to eat, so I always make sure I attend these meetings”.

People we met told us they were able to do as much for themselves as they were willing and capable of doing so safely. Typical feedback we received, included: “I do my own laundry every Thursday”, “We go shopping for food with staff at the weekends”, and “I sometimes make cakes in the kitchen, and today I am going to help staff cook lunch for everyone”.

We saw evidence that people who use the service are encouraged to participate in interesting social, leisure and recreational activities within their home and the local community. Typical comments we received from all four people we spoke with during our visit, included: “We go to lots of nice places”, “I go on bike rides, go on my computer sometimes, and tonight I am going swimming with staff”, and “My relatives came to see me at the weekend, and sometimes staff take me to my families house”.

People using the service who we met told us they liked most of the staff who worked at their home. Typical comments, included: “Staff look after me here”, “I like most of the staff who work here”, and “My key-worker is nice”. Two out of four people we spoke with were able to confirm they had a key-worker and could name them.

During our visit we found evidence that showed us people’s needs were assessed, care and support planned, as well as delivered in line with their person centred support plan. Two out of four people we spoke with told us they knew they had a care plan, which they told us was always kept in the office. One person told us they had a care plan, which their family helped them to review last weekend.

We saw evidence during a guided tour of the premises that the service has taken steps to provide care and support in an adequately maintained and clean environment that looks and feels quite homely and comfortable. The feedback we received from people who us the service was on the whole complimentary about the overall standard of the interior décor of their home. Typical comments made by people we met, included: “I like the colour my bedroom is painted and the way it’s been decorated”, “My bedroom is alright…and I also like it because I can watch television on my own in there”, and “I have got lots of pictures on my bedroom walls, which I think makes it look nice”.

However, all these positive comments notwithstanding we also found all the sink units and most of the furniture in the bedrooms we viewed were damaged to varying degrees, along with the worn out carpet in the ground floor hallway. All the staff we met were aware of these issues and the registered manager confirmed that funds had already been earmarked to make the necessary improvements to the care homes interior. Progress made by the service to achieve these stated aims will be reviewed at the care homes next inspection.

All four people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at 374 St Helier Avenue. Typical comments we received, included: “I feel safe living here” and “I like most of the people that live here with me, and the staff as well”.

 

 

Latest Additions: