You are here

Archived: Mount Avenue

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 April 2014
Date of Publication: 3 June 2014
Inspection Report published 03 June 2014 PDF | 91.33 KB


Inspection carried out on 30 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found -

Is the service safe?

At our last inspection in November 2013 we found staff and care records were inadequate. Records were not held securely. We also found the provider had not taken appropriate steps to provide care in an environment that was adequately maintained.

At this inspection, we saw improvements had been made in relation to fire safety and that a portable appliance testing (PAT) test had been carried out to ensure electrical devices were safe. We saw the boxes of papers had been removed from the lounge and hallway, which made the home less cluttered. However, there was no evidence that the provider had carried out a risk assessment regarding the legionella risk and the management of this. We found window restrictors were not in place on the first floor. The windows opened fully which meant there was a danger people could fall from a height. We found the home remained in need of redecoration.

There was now a staff training matrix in place, which made it clear when refresher training was due. Staff supervisions had begun to be recorded. The minutes for recent staff and resident meetings were now recorded. We found although there had been an improvement in record keeping, the care records were not fully up to date and still contained out of date information. Therefore there was a risk that people�s needs may not be met.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care provided and their needs had been met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people�s care and support needs.

Staff told us they worked well with other providers to ensure the best possible care was given to the people who used the service. Staff confirmed people had access to relevant healthcare professionals in a timely manner. The two people we spoke with told us they were able to access healthcare professionals when required.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff interacted with people in a polite and respectful way. We observed people were able to choose what activities they wanted to do. For example, knitting, reading and watching TV. We spoke with two people who told us they were happy living at the home. Both people told us staff understood their needs. One person told us: �I love it here. This is my home.� Another person said: �It�s lovely living here. The staff help me.�

Is the service responsive?

We spoke with the manager who informed us there were arrangements in place for people to access other services, including: GP, dentist, optician, physiotherapist and the Community Learning Disability Team (CLDT). The manager said these services were accessed through the GP or the CLDT. We saw written evidence which confirmed people had access to healthcare professionals.

Is the service well-led?

At our last inspection in November 2013 we found there was no robust system in place to effectively identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others. At this inspection we found limited improvement had been made and this area still remained a risk.

We saw feedback questionnaires had recently been completed by people who used the service and staff. These were in the process of being analysed by the manager. We saw the feedback was mostly positive. However, people�s views had not been considered regarding what areas of their home should be given priority in the redecoration plan.