Avery Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received person centred care. Care plans contained good, detailed information about people to support their holistic needs and get to know them in person, including life and family history, specific ways they liked things to be done and how they liked to be addressed by name. We observed, and people and staff told us that care was delivered as planned and met their preferences and choice. How staff recorded the delivery of person-centred care required some further development for better oversight and monitoring.

A staff member told us some people received 1:1 activity as they preferred to stay in their rooms; this catered to their preferences of what they enjoyed doing. There were activities packs for people that included puzzles which activities staff supported with where needed.

Rooms were decorated with people’s personal items and people were able to bring some items of their own furniture. One relative was bringing in an item of furniture from home that the person wanted in their room.

For people that couldn’t communicate so well or had memory issues there were person centred story boards in their rooms that celebrated their past and gave staff a real insight into the person for staff and visiting professionals.

The provider worked in partnership with partner agencies, people and their families to ensure the agreed and contracted quality of care was met. The provider was tuned to people’s changing needs and ensured care levels were increased and funding was applied for where necessary. People were placed in appropriate areas of the home that best met their needs.

Continuity of care was well supported as people could progress through increasing levels of support as there needs increased. This meant people didn’t have to move to another home when their needs changed or they needed end of life care and support.

The provider met the requirements of the accessible information standard. They supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, talking books and newspapers, subtitles on televisions and enlarged print was available where needed.

One person had issues with their hearing aids, they told us this was causing them some distress, we discussed this with the provider who was aware of the issue and was in the process of resolving.

Records evidenced that people new how to raise concerns and complaints which we saw the provider had investigated and responded to in line with their policy and procedure. A relative told us that they had raised concerns about the laundry procedures which had resulted in a person’s clothes being missing, these were located and labelled and there had been no further issues.

Another relative told us, “On occasions I’ve noticed there aren’t enough staff.” They explained how this had impacted on their relative, they raised the concern with the provider, and the concerns were resolved. One relative told us they regularly raised concerns; we saw that these were managed in line with the providers policy and procedure.

A recent relative and resident survey found that the vast majority of people new how to make a complaint, felt able to approach staff to complain and were satisfied with the outcome.

Where requested we saw relatives had regular 1 to 1 meetings with the home manager to discuss their relatives’ ongoing care. There were regular service user and relative meetings where people could raise concerns and share ideas and there was also a suggestion box system.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People received equal access to care regardless of their protected characteristics. The home was adapted to ensure people had equal access around it and to use communal areas. Staff had received training in equality, diversity and inclusion and the provider had a policy and procedure for staff guidance.

Staff and leaders made sure that all residents were treated fairly and equally, no matter their background or personal needs. Staff had guidance in care plans on each person’s preferences, including their culture, religion, and how they like to communicate.

Activities were available to all, people who were unbale to access group activities were supported in 1 to 1 activity. Activities were also adapted to people’s needs and ability.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The service could accommodate people throughout deterioration in their health or changing needs. People could transition into higher dependency units such as a unit that supports people with dementia or to a nursing unit for support with increased health needs or end of life care. The service accommodated people staying with their relative at end of life and ensured they were well supported, for example a room was available for family or friends and loved ones to sleep over in and they were provided with refreshments and meals for the duration of their stay.

End of life care plans were in place and do not attempt cardio pulmonary resuscitation record [DNACPR] were available for staff guidance and in an emergency situation.