16 January 2015
During a routine inspection
This unannounced inspection took place on 16 January 2015. The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in February 2014 and this was the first inspection since registration.
Thurlestone Avenue is a care home that provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to eight people with learning disabilities. The people who live there also need support to maintain their mental health and some have autism spectrum disorders. Each person has their own bedroom with ensuite bathroom and small kitchenette area and shares a communal lounge, dining area and kitchen. Located in the Friern Barnet area of the London Borough of Barnet, the service has a rear garden and sensory room for people to use. At the time of our inspection five people lived there.
The providers of Thurlestone Avenue are required to have a manager registered with CQC as a condition of the service’s registration. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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 the time of our inspection the service did not have a registered manager in post, however the service manager had submitted an application for registration and was awaiting the outcome.
We found that the managers and staff of Thurlestone Avenue provided person-centred, quality care for the people who live there. Staff supported people to achieve their goals and ensured their needs were safely met in a responsive way.
Care records were up-to-date and personalised and documented people’s needs, wishes, goals and preferences for their support. People were listened to by staff and the managers and encouraged to maintain their independence and develop new skills. Staff supported people to undertake a range of activities within and outside the service and ensured their health needs were met.
Some of the people who use the service do not communicate verbally and their communication needs were understood by staff. Staff communicated with people using a range of mechanisms to ensure they understood and people were involved in day-to-day decisions about their care and how the service was run. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to their care and support, ‘best interests’ decisions were made and recorded. People were only deprived of their liberty for their own safety when this was approved by the relevant supervisory authority in accordance with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Risks associated with people’s support were assessed and strategies in place to support staff to manage those risks safely. Staff used physical response techniques such as restraint only when necessary to keep people safe, and all instances of the use of physical restraint were clearly documented and reviewed.
The service manager checked staff before they started work and people who use the service were involved in recruitment decisions. Staff had the appropriate skills and qualifications to meet people’s needs and had opportunities to develop their skills through training. Staff received appropriate supervision to review and discuss their work and an appraisal system was in place but had not started at the time of our visit due to the short period of time the service had been operating.
The service had an open and transparent culture and encouraged people to provide feedback. Staff and the managers checked the service regularly and took action to make improvements.