The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Elysian House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Colindale Hospital, Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5DH (020) 8205 1236

Provided and run by:
Rethink Mental Illness

All Inspections

18 June 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection on the 18 June 2015.

Elysian House provides short-term, therapeutic support and accommodation for 12 people experiencing a mental health crisis. The service uses a recovery model of care and support. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people using the service.

There is 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.

At our last inspection on 2 January 2014 we found the service meeting the standards inspected.

Staff supported people to maintain their safety. Assessments were undertaken to identify any risks to a person’s safety and management plans were in place to address those risks. Staff were aware of signs and symptoms that might suggest a person is becoming unwell. People were supported as appropriate to maintain their physical and mental health. People had support plans detailing the support they needed and the support they required from staff.

Staff worked with the community mental health team to ensure support was co-ordinated and appropriate to people’s needs. On the day of our visit we observed some good interactions between staff and people living at the service. People told us that staff were caring and kind. People were given choice and their individual needs were being met by the service. Staff were caring and kind when interacting or assisting people.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy maintained. We saw that staff knocked on people’s doors and gave people time to respond before entering.

Staff encouraged people to be independent, we saw that people had access to kitchen facilities and prepared meals for themselves. People staying at the service had capacity to self-administer their own medicines. We saw that there was a system in place to keep medicines safe. The service acted immediately to ensure the well-being of one person who had run out of their medicines.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs, and had attended regular training. Staff told us that they felt supported by their manager and felt able to raise concerns. Recruitment processes ensured that staff were safe to work with people because the provider had carried out the necessary checks.

Systems for monitoring the quality of the service were effective. People were asked their views on the service.

2 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to check whether improvements had been made since our last inspection of the service in August 2013. At that inspection we found that, although risk assessments were carried out in respect of people's needs, plans to manage the risks identified and maintain people's safety were not always in place. In addition, arrangements for the accurate recording and storage of medicines were not appropriate. We asked the provider to take action to address these concerns.

At our inspection of the service on 2 January 2014 we found that significant improvements had been made. People who used the service had appropriate risk assessments and support plans in place which enabled their needs to be met. Safety plans made clear the actions for staff to take in order to manage the individual risks identified.

People's capability to manage their own medicines was assessed and everyone had a plan in place to ensure they received the support they needed. Staff carried out checks to make sure people's medicines were stored safely and accurate records of people's medicines were kept by the service.

7 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with people who use the service. They told us they were happy with the care and support they received from the service. People said they liked the staff and got on well with them. People were involved in determining the goals of their admission and the support they needed to achieve them.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs. People told us there were always staff available to talk to and one person said, 'the one to one discussions with staff have been very helpful to me.'

The service was clean and there were systems in place to prevent infections. One person told us 'my room is lovely and clean.' This was typical of people's comments. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and ensure care and support was provided appropriately and in a safe environment.

However, the systems for storing and recording medicines on the premises did not protect people sufficiently from the risks associated with medicines. The potential risks affecting people were mostly identified but there were not always appropriate plans in place to manage the risks safely or address people's needs.

19 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service. They told us they were happy with the service provided. We saw positive comments about the service recorded on satisfaction questionnaires. People said they were treated with respect and were listened to and helped by staff. For example, one person wrote, 'the staff really helped me with my emotional issues without judgement.' People felt safe in the service.

Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to deliver the care to people that they needed. The provider regularly monitored the service to make sure that risks to people were minimised and an appropriate standard of care and treatment provided.