The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Avalon Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

116 Clipstone Road West, Forest Town, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG19 0HL (01623) 644195

Provided and run by:
HC-One Limited

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

All Inspections

1 and 2 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 1 and 2 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Accommodation for up to 40 people is provided in the home over two floors. The service is designed to meet the needs of older people. There were 36 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

At the previous inspection on 21 and 22 October 2014, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the areas of care and welfare of people who use services, assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision, management of medicines and supporting workers. We received an action plan in which the provider told us the actions they had taken to meet the relevant legal requirements. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in all of these areas, though further work was still required in the area of care and welfare of people who use services, specifically activities offered to people and the content of care records.

There is a registered manager but she was not available during the inspection. The deputy manager was available during the inspection. 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 felt safe in the home and staff knew how to identify potential signs of abuse. Systems were in place for staff to identify and manage risks and respond to accidents and incidents. The premises were managed to keep people safe. Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and they were recruited through safe recruitment practices. Safe medicines and infection control practices were followed.

Staff received appropriate induction, training and supervision. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People received sufficient to eat and drink. External professionals were involved in people’s care as appropriate. However, the environment required further adaptation to help to meet people’s needs and promote their independence.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care.

Care records did not always provide clear guidance for staff to respond to people’s needs. Activities available for people in the home required improvement. A complaints process was in place and staff knew how to respond to complaints.

People and their relatives were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. Staff told us they would be confident raising any concerns with the management and that the registered manager would take action. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

21 and 22 October 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 21 and 22 October 2014.

Accommodation for up to 40 people is provided in the home over two floors. The service is designed to meet the needs of older people.

There is a registered manager and she was available throughout the inspection. 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 their relatives told us they felt safe in the home. Systems were in place for staff to identify and manage risks. People had mixed views on whether sufficient staff were on duty and we found that people did not always receive prompt care. A person told us that the home was clean and another person told us that staff helped them with their medicines. However, we found that staff did not follow safe medicines management and infection control procedures.

People told us that they had plenty to eat and drink. However, we saw that people were not always well supported at mealtimes. A relative told us that staff knew what they were doing but we found that staff were not always fully supported to have the knowledge and skills they needed to meet people’s needs. We saw that the home involved outside professionals in people’s care as appropriate, however, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act were not fully adhered to.

People and their relatives told us that staff were kind and caring. However, we saw that staff did not always respect people’s dignity and did not respond promptly to a person’s distress. Relatives told us they were kept informed about their relative’s care but people were not involved in their own care.

A person told us that they had not gone on any trips recently and we found that people were not supported to follow their own interests or hobbies. People and their relatives told us they knew who to complain to if they needed to and we saw that complaints had been handled appropriately by the home.

People and their relatives could raise issues at meetings, by completing questionnaires or raising them directly with staff and we saw that the registered manager responded appropriately to them. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided, however, these were limited and were not always effective. The provider had not identified the concerns that we found during this 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 this report.

4 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we visited on two occasions earlier in 2013, we reported there were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Also in May 2013, we found some important records were not maintained. We ensured immediate action was taken regarding staffing and there was a change in management. We asked the provider to send us a report of the actions they would take to maintain improvement.

We received a clear plan of action to improve and when we visited to review the improvements we found action had been taken to consistently provide enough staff to meet people's needs. People that used the service told us staff were very good and helped with anything they needed. One relative said, "I used to worry that there were often not enough staff here, but it has definitely improved." Two other visitors told us they thought there should ideally be far more staff so that people had more attention, but they agreed there were mostly more than previously.

We found improvements in record keeping and all records we requested were immediately available.

29, 31 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We looked at records and spoke with five people using the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to observe how staff interacted and supported people in part of the lounge and dining room. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also spoke with some people's relatives who were visiting.

Some people we spoke with told us that they were very well looked after and all the staff knew what help they needed. Two people did not feel all their needs were being met quickly enough. One relative was concerned about people having to wait for assistance and another relative felt the care at the home had improved. From our observations, we concluded that people's basic care needs were being met and they enjoyed the opportunity to interact with staff.

When we visited on 29 May 2013, we found there were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff working with people. We contacted the provider's quality assurance manager for the local area who took immediate action to improve staffing levels. When we visited again on 31 May 2013 we found temporary staff from an agency were working in the home to supplement the regular staff.

All records were kept securely at the home, but some important records could not be located immediately and some were not maintained.

17 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with eight people that used the service and most of them told us they thought all the staff were very respectful and kind to them at all times. Two people told us they felt most staff respected them, but not all, especially at busy times of the day.

The people we spoke with gave us conflicting information about how well they were looked after. One person who had lived in the home for over two years told us that they were very well looked after and all the staff knew what was needed. Other people who had moved in during recent weeks did not feel all their needs were being met.

Most people we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. One person said, "It's as safe here as it is anywhere." Visiting relatives told us they felt it was safe to leave their relative at the home.

People told us the staff worked very hard. One person said, "They are marvellous, all of them." However, they also said there were not enough staff provided and we found further evidence of this from our own observations. Two people told us that if they used there buzzer they often had to wait a long time for any staff to assist them.

There had previously been regular meetings held for people who used the service and their relatives and the quality assurance manager had reported on consultations with visiting relatives. There were monthly visits made to the service by an area quality assurance manager so that the provider was able to monitor the quality of the service.