Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Haydons Lodge, Wimbledon, London.

Haydons Lodge in Wimbledon, London is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, learning disabilities and mental health conditions. The last inspection date here was 13th April 2018

Haydons Lodge is managed by Centrust Care Homes Limited.

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

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

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-04-13
    Last Published 2018-04-13

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.

6th March 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Haydon’s Lodge is a ‘care home’. People living there receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service can accommodate up to six people living with mental health needs. The service is delivered from two adjoining houses that have been separately adapted, each with their own facilities and entrance. People are free to access both houses and all the communal areas are shared including, both the dining areas, lounges, kitchens and the rear garden. At the time of this inspection there were four people aged 60 and over living at the home. [

At our last comprehensive inspection in February 2016 we rated the service ‘Good’ overall and for four out of five of our key questions, “Is the service safe, effective, caring and well-led?” However, we also rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ for the key question, “Is the service responsive?” This was because people were not always supported do as much as they could do for themselves. At this inspection we found the provider had improved the way they encouraged and supported people to do as much as they could and wanted to do for themselves. This meant people now had greater opportunities to maintain and develop their independent living skills. Consequently, we have improved the service’s rating to ‘Good’ in relation to the key question, “Is the service responsive?”

Furthermore, at this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of 'Good' and there was no information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service remains unchanged since our last inspection.

However, the positive points made above notwithstanding we also found during this inspection the service had deteriorated from ‘Good’ to ‘Requires Improvement’ for the key question, “Is the service safe?” This was because substances hazardous to health were not always kept safely stored away when they were not in use and window restrictors in two people’s bedrooms were not well-maintained. These health and safety failures might have put people living in the home at unnecessary risk of harm. We discussed these issues with the registered manager who took immediate action to resolve them at the time of our inspection.

In addition, although recruitment checks for new staff remained robust, the provider did not have any recognised policies and procedures in place to reassess existing staff’s on-going suitability. We discussed this issue with the registered manager who agreed to review the provider’s staff vetting procedures.

The issues we found notwithstanding people living at the home and their relatives told us they continued to be happy with the standard of care and support provided at Haydon’s Lodge. We saw staff still looked after people in a way which was kind and caring. Our discussions with community health and social care professionals supported this.

There continued to be robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. It was clear from comments we received from managers and staff that they were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse and neglect. The provider assessed and managed risks to people’s safety in a way that considered their individual needs and wishes. There were enough staff to keep people safe. The home looked clean and no infection control or food hygiene issues were identified. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff continued to receive appropriate training to ensure they had the right knowledge and skills needed to perform their roles effectively. People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their dietary needs. People said they liked the quality and choice of meals the

15th January 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We undertook this unannounced inspection on 15 January 2016. At our previous inspection on 20 November 2014 the service was in breach of legal requirements relating to good governance and the submission of notifications. At this inspection we checked whether the service had taken the necessary action to meet these breaches.

Hayden’s Lodge provides accommodation, care and support to up to six adults with mental health needs and/or learning disabilities. The service is delivered from two residential homes in South London. People are free to access both homes and they share communal areas and gardens. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 were involved in decisions about their care and chose how they spent their time. A key worker system was in place to provide people with one to one support, and to have regular discussion with people about working towards the goals in their recovery plan. People were supported to develop some of their daily living skills. However, staff were not adequately supporting people to develop independent living skills and were not motivating and stimulating people to engage in meaningful activities.

People received the support they required to stay safe and well. Staff were aware of the risks to people’s safety and to the safety of others. Staff worked with people to manage and minimise those risks. Risk management plans were in place and regularly reviewed.

Staff supported people with their mental and physical health needs. Staff liaised with the healthcare professionals involved in people’s care and the community mental health team to identify people’s health needs. Staff discussed with them any changes in people’s behaviour. Recovery and support plans were in place which identified what support people required and how this was to be delivered.

People received the care they required with their health and were supported to access the GP when they needed them. Staff discussed with people how their health could be promoted, including informing them about foods appropriate to their dietary requirements.

People received their medicines as prescribed, and safe medicines management processes were followed. Clinical waste was stored and disposed of safely.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to support people, and this was regularly updated through the completion of training sessions. Staff’s competency was reviewed during supervision and appraisal processes. The registered manager supported staff to develop, including supporting them to complete additional relevant qualifications.

Staff were aware of the procedures to follow if they had concerns about a person’s health, witnessed an incident or had concerns a person was being harmed. The registered manager reviewed any concerns identified and liaised with health and social care professionals when appropriate to ensure people received the support they required.

People, their relatives and staff were able to express their views and opinions about the service. There was open communication amongst the staff team and with the people using the service. Meetings were held with people and staff to obtain their feedback about the service. The registered manager investigated any complaints received and took the necessary action to address the concerns.

The registered manager regularly reviewed the quality of service provision. This included reviewing the quality of the support provided to people, the support staff received, and ensuring a safe and secure environment was provided.

The registered manager took the necessary action to address

16th July 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

During our last inspection of the service in March 2013, we identified essential standards of quality and safety were not being met in respect of Regulations 9, 13, 15 and 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. Following that inspection we asked the provider to take appropriate action to achieve compliance with these regulations.

The provider sent us an action plan on 30 April 2013 setting out the actions they would take to achieve compliance with these regulations. During this inspection we checked these actions had been completed.

We were unable to speak to people using the service during our visit. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by speaking with staff and reviewing other records related to the running of the service. From minutes of residents meetings we saw people were generally satisfied with the care and support they received.

From people’s records we saw plans were in place to meet their care and support needs. Risks to their health, safety and wellbeing had actions identified to manage these. We saw records had been reviewed and updated so that staff had up to date information about people’s current care and support needs.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for obtaining, recording, and handling medicines. Medicines were administered appropriately and stored safely.

The provider had taken steps to make improvements to ensure the home was adequately maintained.

16th March 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We talked with four people using the service and three members of staff. People were overall satisfied with the support they received from staff. They were supported to develop individual living skills and their independence was promoted. We however, found that individual risk assessments were not developed for each person to ensure their safety and that of others.

The provider did not have a consistent approach to the care planning process. Some support and recovery plans did not have dates and were not signed by staff or by people using the service to show their involvement in this process. We also found some plans were dated more than a year ago so it was not clear when these had been reviewed.

People were seen by healthcare professionals but records were not always kept about the outcomes of the appointment and when these took place. Staff therefore might not have had the necessary information to fully support people with their healthcare needs. Medicines were not always managed appropriately to ensure people were protected against the risks that could arise from medicines.

People lived in a homely environment but the premises were not adequately maintained to ensure they lived in a pleasant environment. Living areas were used for storage and some cleaning products were not stored securely to ensure the safety of people.

Staff were appropriately supported to ensure they were sufficiently skilled to care and support people who use the service.

5th October 2011 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

People who use the service told us they meet with staff and talk about their needs and how they want them to be met. People said they have 'enough to do' and said 'I do what I want'.

'I like the food' and 'I get the food I like' were some of the comments about the food provided. People told us they make themselves drinks when they want.

General comments about the staff included 'the manager is good, she listens and helps', 'staff listen' and 'they're alright'.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 20 November 2014 and was unannounced.

 

At the last inspection on 16 July 2013 we found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.    

Haydons Lodge is a small care home which provides accommodation for up to six adults with mental health needs and/or a learning disability. The accommodation is split across two adjoining houses, each with their own separate entrance. Each house accommodates three people. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home. Each person has their own room. In each house there are communal facilities such as a lounge, dining room, kitchen and garden. People are free to use the communal areas in both houses.

 

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run. 

 

 

During this inspection we found the service had not ensured a medicine prescribed to an individual was safe to use. However all other medicines were stored safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. 

 

We recommend that

the provider considers guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in March 2014 for managing medicines in care homes. 

 

We found inappropriate arrangements in place for the disposal of insulin pens which increased the risks of the spread of infection. However the

home was clean and tidy throughout and free from malodours. 

 

People and their relatives told us people were safe at Haydons Lodge.

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 these to keep people safe from harm or injury in the home and community. The home, and the equipment within it, was regularly checked to ensure it was safe. The home was clear and free of clutter to enable people to move safely around the home. There were enough suitable staff to care for and support people. 

People’s needs were met by staff who received appropriate training and support. Staff felt well supported by the manager. Staff looked after people in a way which was kind, caring and respectful. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and how these should be met.

Staff supported people to keep healthy and well through regular monitoring of their general health and wellbeing. People were encouraged to drink and eat sufficient amounts. Where there were any issues or concerns about a person’s health or wellbeing staff ensured they received prompt care and attention from appropriate healthcare professionals. 

Care plans were in place which reflected people’s specific needs and their individual choices and beliefs for how they lived their lives. People were appropriately supported by staff to make decisions about their care and support needs. These were reviewed with them regularly by staff.

The home was open and welcoming to visitors and relatives. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them. People were also supported to undertake activities and outings of their choosing. People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable raising any concerns they had with staff and knew how to make a complaint if needed.  

During this inspection we found the provider in breach of their legal requirement to submit notifications to CQC. We also found they had failed to submit to CQC, written information about the service, which they had been required to do. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.  

The systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service were not always used effectively. We found checks of medicines in the home failed to identify some issues and concerns in the way these were managed.  

The provider regularly sought people’s views about how the care and support they received could be improved. They also engaged with other social care providers to identify best practice used elsewhere, to make improvements within the home.  

 

.

 

 

Latest Additions: