• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Raola House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

205 Woodcote Road, Wallington, Surrey, SM6 0QQ (020) 8835 2258

Provided and run by:
Rashot Ltd

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

All Inspections

19/08/2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection took place on 19 August 2015 and was unannounced. We carried out our last inspection on 17 November 2014 and found the service was breaching regulations in relation to safeguarding people from the risk of abuse, safe care and treatment, consent and person-centred care. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their action plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements and had addressed all areas where improvement was needed. We found the provider had taken all the necessary action to improve the service in respect of the breaches and issues we found at our last inspection.

This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Raola House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Raola House is a care home which provides care for up to six adults with learning disabilities. At the time of our visit, there were six people using the service. The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

During the inspection we found the provider had taken the necessary action to improve in relation to the breaches we identified at our last inspection. Staff had received training in safeguarding and safeguarding issues were regularly discussed in staff meetings and staff supervision to increase their knowledge and awareness of how to keep people safe. Staff knew the appropriate action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place to protect people. The pan-London safeguarding policy which all London local authorities follow was accessible to staff in the home and the provider had their safeguarding policy in the home for staff to refer to.

The provider had reviewed and updated people’s risk assessments and has included people’s views so staff had sufficient detail to understand the particular risks to people and what they needed to do to protect them. This meant risks to people from receiving care that was unnecessarily restrictive to them or against their wishes, were minimised.

The service had ensured people’s capacity to make decisions for themselves was assessed where appropriate. This meant that people were not receiving care that was unnecessarily restrictive or not in their best interests.

People and their relatives were involved in reviewing their care along with staff who worked closely with them. People’s care plans contained information about the life histories as well as their likes and dislikes. This helped to ensure that people received care or support that took into account their individual views or preferences.

Care plans were personalised and contained information about people which was accurate and up to date. This helped to ensure people received personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs.

Personal information about people was kept securely which mean risk to their confidentiality being compromised was reduced.

Systems the provider used to address the shortfalls we identified at our last inspection have been reviewed and improved to make these more effective and to ensure the service was meeting the relevant legal requirements.

17 November 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 17 November 2014 and was unannounced. We carried out our last inspection on 25 June 2013 and found the service was meeting all of the standards we looked at.

Raola House is located in a residential area of Wallington and provides care for up to six adults with learning disabilities. At the time of our visit, there were six people using the service. The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

We found that staff were aware of how to recognise abuse or potential abuse, but were not familiar with the provider’s reporting procedures and did not know where to find a copy to refer to, if required. This meant that people may be at risk of harm due to staff not following appropriate procedures.

People had risk assessments so staff knew how to protect them from risks specific to them. However, these were not all individualised and did not consider least restrictive ways of keeping people safe. People were at risk of receiving care that did not always promote their rights by enabling them to take positive risks.

The service did not always ensure that people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support was assessed where appropriate. This is required by law and failure to do so can mean that people receive care that is unnecessarily restrictive or not in their best interests.

The provider took steps to ensure the premises were safe by carrying out regular checks on the environment and ensuring fire equipment was regularly serviced. The home was clean and well-maintained.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. Robust recruitment procedures helped ensure people were protected from the risks of having unsuitable staff care for them.

Medicines were kept safely and staff received appropriate training to ensure they were aware of how to administer and record them safely.

Staff received training, which included support and advice from specialist providers working with people who used the service. This helped staff to work consistently in line with best practice. Staff were appropriately supervised and received appraisals to encourage professional development.

People received enough suitable food and drink to meet their preferences and needs, including cultural needs. They enjoyed the food provided by the service and were able to choose meals according to their preference. There was a variety of nutritious food provided and staff knew people’s likes and dislikes.

Staff ensured that people had access to healthcare providers on a regular basis or when required so that their health needs were met.

People felt staff were kind and caring, knew them well and gave them the support they wanted. Although people were involved in discussing their care at regular interviews and had opportunities to express their views, they were not always involved in developing initial care plans. These did not contain information about people’s views, likes and dislikes or life history. People may therefore have been at risk of receiving care or support that did not take into account their individual views or preferences.

The service used a variety of methods to meet people’s communication needs, some of which were complex. They supported people in ways that valued their independence and which met their religious needs.

People felt that staff listened to them and they were given opportunities to express their views. Staff regularly ensured people knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.

Care plans were not always personalised and some information was duplicated across different people’s files. Some information was incorrect or out of date. This meant there was a risk that people did not receive personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs.

People were offered activities that were meaningful to them and allowed them to broaden their life experiences, including trips, holidays and outings within their local community as well as activities within the home. They received support to maintain contact with their family and others who were important to them.

There was a fair and open culture within the service. Staff and people who used the service were able to express their views and felt that senior staff and managers listened to them and took action where required to improve the service.

The provider carried out regular surveys so people and their relatives were able to have their say and comment on the quality of the service and how it could be improved. The provider acted on people’s comments to address areas where people or others were not fully satisfied.

Some personal information relating to people who used the service was not always kept securely, which meant their confidentiality could have been compromised. We recommend that the provider consider the guidance on the secure storage of records under the Data Protection Act and other relevant legislation.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify any service-wide risks or shortfalls. These were effective in identifying and acting on some areas for improvement, but had not picked up issues that we found at our inspection.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

25 June 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection there were five people living at Raoloa House. Due to people's complex needs some people were unable to share their views in a meaningful way. We spoke to one person who told us 'the staff are really nice', 'I have nothing to complain about' and 'I would tell the owner if I had a complaint'. We also spoke to a relative who told us 'they treat everyone like family', 'I have no complaints, the staff are lovely' and 'they provide the best care'.

Peoples care plans were comprehensive and staff had very good knowledge of individual needs and the ways that people like being supported.

We found improvements had been made since our last inspection in the way the home informed people about the complaints process.

It was evident from the practices we saw during our visit that the people using the service were well supported by the staff that worked there and treated with respect.

4 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that services were provided according to resident's' needs following assessments involving care managers, healthcare professionals and family members. We also found that the provider provided residents with information in accessible formats to support them in decision making. We observed person centred support plans which included risk assessments and Health Action Plans. We observed an up to date Vulnerable adults Policy and evidence that staff were aware of the risk of abuse and, although there had been no incidents, were aware of what to do in the event of an allegation being made or their suspecting abuse. We found that there were sufficient trained and qualified staff to meet the residents' needs and that the staff on duty knew the residents well.

We were told that there was not a written complaints procedure and that no complaints had been made.

1 March 2012

During a routine inspection

When we visited the home there were 5 people living there. One room is also kept for someone who comes,regularly, for respite care.

For most people, communication is difficult. However, all of them displayed signs of positive engagement with the staff and their surroundings. They showed an interest in our visit, pointing out where to sit in the lounge and happy to join us.

One person was able to speak with us and told us 'its nice here, I go to college, and do lots of things like swimming and going out to the shops and for dinner'.

Staff told us that, as well as going out for activities, people go to the supermarket to get the weekly shopping, and like to have meals out, especially McDonalds. We were shown an album with photos of trips that people had enjoyed and an annual holiday is arranged for them.