Archived: Avondale Care Home

Updated 25 August 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 23 and 24 May 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, information received and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

During our inspection we spoke with six people who were using the service, three relatives and two visitors. We also spoke with seven members of the staff team, and the owner of Avondale. We observed the way staff cared for people in the communal areas of the building and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at the care records of three people who used the service, as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service including four staff files, medication records and audits carried out at the service. We also contacted commissioners (who fund the care for some people) of the service and asked them for their views.

Updated 25 August 2016

This inspection took place on 23 and 24 May 2016 and was unannounced.

Avondale residential home is situated in the village of Harworth and is registered to provide accommodation for up to 31 people persons who require nursing or personal care. At the time of inspection 21 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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

We found that medicines were stored correctly, however they were not always administered safely. People’s care records showed that any risk to their safety had been identified and measures were put in place to reduce these risks. The risk assessments were being updated at the time of our visit. The cleaning schedule in place had not identified debris behind the tumble drier which could have presented a hazard. People who used the service and staff at Avondale knew who to report any concerns to if they felt they or others had been the victim of abuse. There were enough staff with the right skills and experience to meet people’s needs.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The DoLS are part of the MCA. They aim to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not restrict their freedom. The safeguards should ensure that a person is only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way, and that this is only done when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them. Staff applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 appropriately when providing care for people and information in people’s care plans with regard to their capacity was being updated at the time of our inspection.

People were supported by staff who had received the training and supervision they needed to support people effectively. People had consented to the care that they received. People spoke positively about the food they received and were able to have choice in what they ate at each meal. People had regular access to their GP and also other health care professionals when required.

People were supported by staff who were caring and treated them with kindness, respect and dignity. Staff encouraged people to remain independent wherever possible and where people showed signs of distress or discomfort, staff responded to them quickly. There were no restrictions on friends and relatives visiting their family members.

Staff were on hand to respond to people’s needs and a range of activities were available to those that wished to join in. Care plans were being updated with the involvement of each person and their family to take account of any change in need a person may have. A complaints procedure was in place and people felt comfortable in making a complaint if needed.

The atmosphere within the home was warm and friendly. People living in the home were asked for their opinions with regard to the service that they received, and these were taken into account when making decisions to improve the service. Staff understood the values and aims of the service and spoke highly of the registered manager. Processes were in place to check on the quality of the service.