You are here

Archived: Mount Avenue

Reports


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there had been an improvement in record keeping, the care records were not fully up to date and still contained out of date information.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.

Inspection carried out on 18 November 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit we spoke with two of the three people who lived in the home. One person was out all day. They said they were happy living at Mount Avenue saying “It’s my home now and I love it!” and “I love it here”. Both people were happy for us to see their rooms and the communal areas of the home and they participated in the inspection.

The two people we spoke with told us they felt safe and they would speak to staff if they were worried or concerned about anything. We saw that they were at ease and relaxed with both staff and their surroundings; we saw staff treated them in a kindly manner.

The manager and carer present showed that they knew the support needs of the people living in the home though this was not reflected in the records held.

We found the whole home was in need of redecoration.The manager said they had asked people who lived in the home how they wished their rooms to be decorated but this had not been acted on as yet.

We found that there was a lack of an overall robust system in place to monitor the quality of service provided in the home. We also found that there was a lack of good record keeping in all aspects of the home.

Inspection carried out on 6 November 2012

During a routine inspection

The Mount Avenue Care Home accommodated three service users, on the day of our visit one of the people who use the service was in hospital and the registered manager was at the hospital visiting this person and arranging a funeral for the mother of another person using the service, therefore we were unable to speak with the Registered Manager about the service.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who use the service, including talking to people, reviewing documentation and observing the care being delivered. Staff we spoke with gave good examples of how people are treated with dignity and respect. We looked at care plans for people who use the service and found that they were up to date and provided good information about how people's care and support needs would be met. We saw that people were at ease and relaxed with staff and their surroundings, staff treated people with consideration and in a manner which protected their safety and comfort. Staff told us access to training was good and they were encouraged and supported to obtain further relevant qualifications. The complaints file demonstrated that people's complaints were fully investigated and resolved, where possible, to their satisfaction.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)