You are here

Idelo Limited - 5 Courtenay Avenue Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 September 2018

The inspection of Idelo Limited–5 Courtenay Avenue took place on 7 August 2018 and was unannounced.

Idelo Limited–5 Courtenay Avenue is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Idelo Limited–5 Courtenay Avenue provides care and support for up to three people who have learning disabilities, some of whom live with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support (RRS) and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

At our previous inspection on the 24 and 25 August 2017 we rated the service 'requires improvement' and identified one breach of legal requirement because people were not being protected from financial abuse. We also made a recommendation on improving and developing more effective quality monitoring and improvement processes. At this inspection we found sufficient action had been completed to address the shortfalls we found and improvements to the service had been made.

During this inspection we found there were no breaches of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and we rated the service overall as Good.

All the people using the service told us that they were happy living in the home and satisfied with the care and support that they received from staff. People using the service told us that staff were kind and they felt safe. Staff engaged with people in a respectful and positive manner.

Arrangements were in place to manage people’s monies effectively and safely. Action had been taken to address the deficiencies we found during the last inspection to do with the management and handling of people’s monies. People using the service were protected and at minimal risk of financial abuse.

The provider had improved and developed the arrangements for monitoring and improving the quality of the service provided to people.

Staff knew people well. They had the skills and knowledge to provide people with the care and support that they needed. Staff received a range of training relevant to their roles and responsibilities. Arrangements had been put in place in place to ensure staff received the refresher training that they needed to remain competent in carrying out their duties in meeting the individual needs of people using the service.

Staff understood their obligations regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff gained people's consent before providing them with assistance with personal care and other activities.

People's care plans were up to date and personalised. They included details about people’s individual needs and preferences and guidance for staff to follow so people received personalised care and support. Care plans about one person’s specific medical needs were developed following our inspection.

Staff knew people well and had a caring approach to their work and understood the importance of treating people with dignity, protecting people's privac

Inspection areas



Updated 11 September 2018

The service was safe.

Safeguarding systems, processes and training were in place to keep people safe from the risk of abuse. Action had been taken by the service to protect people from financial abuse.

Risks to people were identified and measures were in place to lessen the risk of people being harmed.

Arrangements were in place to manage and administer people�s medicines safely.



Updated 11 September 2018

The service was effective.

People�s dietary needs and preferences were understood and accommodated by the service.

People received support from staff who were competent in carrying out their roles and responsibilities.

People were provided with support to access the healthcare services they needed.

Staff sought people's consent before providing care and support.

The premises were accessible to each person using the service.



Updated 11 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness from staff who knew them well. Staff knew people well and understood their cultural needs.

People were supported to express their views and to be actively involved in decisions about their care.

People's privacy and dignity were supported. Relationships with those important to people were supported by the service.



Updated 11 September 2018

The service was responsive

People�s needs were assessed and understood. Arrangements were in place to ensure the service was responsive to changes in people�s needs.

People were fully involved in the development and review of their care plans.

People had the opportunity to take part in a range of activities of their choice that met their preferences and minimised any risk of social isolation.

A complaints process was in place. People were listened to and complaints were taken seriously and addressed appropriately.



Updated 11 September 2018

The service was well-led.

The atmosphere at the service was open and inclusive. Staff were provided with the support and direction that they needed to meet the needs of people using the service.

Shortfalls found during the last inspection had been addressed.

There were processes in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, and to drive improvement. These arrangements were in the process of being developed and improved.