The Avenue Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed prior to using the service to ensure their needs could be met. The information gathered during the pre-admission assessment included a person’s current situation, health and wellbeing, skin assessment and risk, toileting and continence needs, mobility and fall risk, medication, memory and understanding, personal safety and security, sleep and rest and capacity and consent. This information formed people’s care plans. Relatives confirmed they were involved and attended care reviews for their family member. A person told us they had reviews with their social worker. Another person said,“I’ve not seen my care plan, but they (staff) always talk to me about my likes and dislikes.Handovers took place which meant staff coming on duty had all the information they needed to care for people safely.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Overall, we received positive feedback about people’s mealtime experiences. One person said, “The food was scrumptious. I am a vegetarian and there is always one vegetarian option at lunchtime and sometimes a choice at teatime.” Another person explained how there were various things they did not eat but there was usually an option on the menu they would like and told us, “The food is very good. There is a menu with a choice at dinnertime.” A relative told us, “[Person’s name] seems very happy with the food.” However, one relative shared their family member often complained about the meals as they could only have what was available. The provider used nationally recognised tools to assess and monitor risk. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) where people were at risk of weight loss. Where appropriate people had their needs assessed by speech and language therapists (SALT) and received meals in line with recommendations made by these professionals. This guidance helps staff to know what food and fluid textures people need when they are at risk of choking.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. A healthcare professional shared how well the service worked with their team and said, “Staff are always happy and attentive. Residents seem happy and well cared for. Referrals are always timely and appropriate. Very proactive.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People and their relatives told us they had access to health care professionals if they needed them. One person we spoke with told us they had recently been supported to go to the dentist, and they see the optician regularly. Another person said, “I see the GP regularly and have frequent health checks.” A further person told us, “I had an optician come to the home to ensure I had appropriate glasses.” A relative said, "There has not been an issue with access to health support they (staff) have always responded. [Person’s name] had recently been seen by a dentist.” However, one family did share how they found it difficult at times as they had to accompany their loved one if they required medical appointments. Where people chose to make unwise decisions which could have a detrimental impact on their health. For example, smoking and vaping, staff discussed the risks associated with these decisions with people. One staff member said, “We (staff) don’t and can’t refuse people having a cigarette or vaping, but we have conversations with them around health concerns and risks relating to smoking.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. There were monitoring systems in place to monitor people’s health, such as fluid watch and weight monitoring. Tools in place gave feedback on people’s health and provided a system to flag issues early. Care plans were audited and reviewed to ensure information was accurate.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff had undertaken relevant training and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). There were systems in place, and the provider understood their responsibilities in relation to the MCA. Where a person may be lacking capacity appropriate assessments had been carried out. One relative told us their family member was unable to consent on many issues, and they believed best interest meetings had taken place however, they told us they had not been made aware or been part of these meetings. We further corroborated best interest meetings had taken place however some relatives had chosen not to attend.