Archived: Avon Lodge

Is the service safe, responsive and caring? These questions are not applicable as we did not inspect these areas.

Is the service effective?

We inspected training and supervision records and found that the majority of staff who were employed on a permanent basis at Avon Lodge had undertaken required mandatory training which had been recorded. We spoke with three members of staff and found that they were receiving supervision and that opportunities for them to obtain further qualifications in the future had been discussed with them. Staff said that they felt supported by the manager and that they could discuss concerns as they arose rather than having to wait for formal supervision sessions.

Is the service well led? We spoke with the registered manager and deputy manager about ways in which the service was monitoring the quality of service provision. We looked at records of house meetings and found that these had been held on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues with people who lived in the service. We spoke with three people who lived at the home who told us that staff listened to their views and asked them what they wanted to do and how they wished to spend their time. We saw that surveys had been distributed and five had been returned. When we spoke with staff and people who lived at Avon Lodge we found that actions had been taken following suggestions made however evidence of follow-up actions from those house meetings were not always documented in the notes of the following meeting.

Below is the summary of what we found but if you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report. The summary is based on speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them, our observations and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

We saw that people who used the service were treated with dignity and their rights were respected. One person told us, 'It's okay here, they look after us all very well.' Another person told us, 'I can go out and I tell the staff when I will be back. They do that so that they know I am alright, and safe.'

All the people we spoke with said they felt safe in the home and visitors said they felt their relatives/friends were safe. People who used the service also told us they felt they got the care and support they needed, when they needed it.

The home had safe systems in place to ensure people received their medication as prescribed. Staff were assessed for competency prior to administering medication and this was reassessed regularly.

Is the service effective?

We asked people who used the service about their care and if they were able to make decisions affecting their lives. People told us they were always asked for their consent before care tasks were carried out and that they were used to making decisions for themselves. We saw that some people had signed their individual care records, indicating they agreed with the content and the intervention from staff. One person told us, 'We have our ups and downs, we sometimes agree amongst ourselves but we always get on. We look after one another too.' Others in the room agreed with this comment.

Staff we spoke with showed a good understanding of protecting people's rights to refuse care and support. They said they would always explain the risks from refusing care or support and try to discuss alternative options to give people more choice and control over their decisions.

Is the service caring?

Throughout our observations we saw staff treated people with kindness, patience and courtesy. We saw staff encouraging people when giving support, making sure the person understood the task being undertaken and maintaining their independence. People told us, 'You don't need to worry, we get everything we need. We are looked after very well.' A visitor told us, 'X has been the happiest she has ever been now she is living here. X seems to trust the staff and that has helped her a lot.'

Is the service responsive?

Care records showed that people's needs were assessed. We found information was clearly recorded to show how a person's needs should be met. We saw people who used the service were responded to promptly when they asked for any support or assistance.

Is the service well led?

Staff said they felt the service was well managed and the manager was approachable and committed to her role. They said they had confidence that if any issues were brought to her attention they would be dealt with properly and thoroughly. However, staff were not receiving regular supervision or training.

There was a lack of evidence that staff had received regular training and that this was being monitored by the manager or provider. There was also a lack of evidence of records, and from staff feedback, that supervision was being undertaken on a regular basis by the senior management team.

We found that the provider had no systems in place to identify, assess or manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. People who used the service were invited to attend house meetings, these were poorly attended, however, the provider had not developed alternative ways to see their views about the service.

Staff were aware of people's rights and gave individuals the opportunity to make choices whenever that was possible. Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

People received safe, appropriate care and the service had good systems in place to ensure their health and wellbeing was protected at all times.

People lived in a clean home, where infection prevention measures were in place and were regularly monitored. However, some equipment and d'cor was showing signs of wear and tear.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

The service has a complaints process and this is was accessible for people. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.