CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at London Mental Health Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, recruitment checks were completed and there were enough staff. The home was clean and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in, and staff worked with mental health and other health professionals. Staff had training and supervision, and the home supported nutrition, healthcare and least restrictive care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect by staff who knew them well. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities were available, including trips and in-house events. However, goals for independence were not always easy to monitor, not everyone regularly took part in activities, and a consistent communication assessment process was only introduced after this issue was raised.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, regular checks on quality and safety, and a service improvement plan. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and the home worked with other professionals.
What inspectors found, October 2023
London Mental Health Care Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and effective care, with some improvements still needed.
Inspectors visited on 22 and 23 August 2023. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and health and social care professionals. They also checked care and medicine records, staff files, policies and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable risk assessments and a clean environment. People were treated with kindness and staff understood their mental health needs.
The report also identifies areas for improvement. Goals for greater independence were not always recorded in a way that allowed progress to be checked. The home did not previously have a consistent way to assess communication needs, and not everyone regularly joined activities. The provider acted during or after the inspection on communication assessments and end of life wishes.
Safety and staffing
Risks were assessed and managed. Inspectors found enough staff on duty and safe recruitment checks.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's safety needs which was confirmed by staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and checked safely. The medicine records inspected had been completed correctly.
“People's medicines were stored, administered, and managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that care respected privacy, dignity, equality and personal choices.
“People were well treated and supported by familiar staff that knew them well.” from the report
Working with professionals
The home worked closely with community mental health teams and other health and social care professionals. Information from professionals was included in care plans.
“The provider worked effectively with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure they received consistent care.” from the report
Leadership and improvement
The manager used audits, meetings, surveys and an improvement plan to monitor the service and identify changes.
“There were a wide range of audits and quality assurance checks to ensure high standards of care and safety were maintained.” from the report
Independence goals
needs fixingThe home could do more to help people set goals and work towards independence. Some goals were not recorded clearly enough to track progress.
“Where goals and aspirations were identified, these were not always planned in a way that would enable people and staff to monitor and review progress towards achievement.” from the report
Communication assessments
needs fixingThe home did not have a consistent process for assessing communication needs. Inspectors raised this and the provider introduced an assessment tool.
“The provider did not have a consistent way of assessing people's communication needs.” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingAlthough the home was not providing end of life support, it had not followed its own policy to ask people about their wishes. The provider said it had started doing this after inspectors raised the issue.
“However, they were not following their own policy which stipulated people should be consulted about their end of life care/funeral wishes.” from the report
- 01How will you help my relative set independence goals, and how will you record and review their progress?
- 02How will you make sure my relative can take part in activities and community events that suit their interests?
- 03How do you assess and record communication needs and preferences?
- 04How do you record and review each person's end of life and funeral wishes?
- 05How will you keep me informed about changes to my relative's care and support?
This inspection covered all five CQC key questions and included infection prevention and control measures, as well as care, medicines, staffing, records and the management of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end of life plans not yet recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 September 2018. The home could accommodate 15 people and 13 people were living there. Inspectors spoke with five people, two care workers and managers. They observed the home and staff interactions, and checked care plans, staff files, medicines records, safety checks, complaints and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, individual risk plans, trained staff and support for people's physical and mental health.
People were involved in their care, treated with dignity and supported to maintain their independence. They could take part in activities, use the local community and complain if needed. However, care records did not cover end of life care, although nobody needed this support at the time.
Individual risk support
Risks to people's health and wellbeing were identified and managed through plans tailored to each person's needs. These plans were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Each person's risk management plan was tailored to include their individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found established systems for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines. Records showed medicines were administered and recorded correctly.
“Each MAR was clear and completed correctly.” from the report
Respectful care
People were involved in decisions about their care and were treated kindly and respectfully. Staff gave people time and space to talk.
“We observed staff speaking with people in a kind and respectful way.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were supported to build daily living skills, use communal facilities, take part in activities and go into the local community.
“People were encouraged to go out in their local community.” from the report
Staff support and oversight
Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. Audits identified issues and inspectors found that action was taken to make improvements.
“The audit system in place was effective because risks to people and the service were identified and action was taken to make the necessary improvements.” from the report
End of life records
needs fixingCare records did not set out people's end of life wishes or arrangements. Nobody needed end of life support during the inspection, and staff understood how to provide it if needed.
“Care records did not address end of life care.” from the report
- 01How would you record and review my relative's end of life wishes if their needs changed?
- 02How would you support my relative to manage their medicines independently, if appropriate?
- 03What activities and community visits would be available for my relative, and what support would they receive to take part?
- 04How often would my relative's physical and mental health needs and care plan be reviewed?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in assessments, care planning and reviews?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and was the first inspection since the home registered in November 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of London Mental Health Care Centre
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at London Mental Health Care Centre →
- November 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at London Mental Health Care Centre →
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 November 2017.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Lewisham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.