Averlea Residential 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because

they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication

needs with them.

Peoples' care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. Staff understood people’s needs and how they preferred to be supported. Not all the records relating to care and support were accurate. For example, one person’s care plan stated they needed to complete some gentle exercises each morning. Staff told us they rarely completed these due to declining health. This was not reflected in their care plan. However, staff knew the person well and were able to describe the exercises. The same person had a specific medical condition. Staff had access to guidance on the condition in a fact sheet. However, there was no associated care plan or risk assessment. This meant staff had no information about how the condition impacted on the individual and what it meant for their quality of life.

Prior to anyone moving into the service the registered manager completed an assessment of the person’s needs. This included consideration of their emotional well-being as well as any specific medical conditions. An external professional commented; “Care staff have always sat in with assessments when required and have always ensured that that the staff member that knows the service user best are free to support.”

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.

People’s dietary needs were recorded and well understood by staff. A cook was employed, and they were aware of any individual needs, likes and dislikes. When necessary, specialist advice was sought.

People had access to a nutritious and varied diet. People’s weight was monitored regularly so any significant changes would be quickly identified.

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.

There was a stable and consistent staff team who knew people well. Staff told us they communicated well and were updated about any changes. When people moved across services information was shared appropriately to support a smooth transition.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were not given opportunities to take part in any gentle exercise or movement programmes. There was a lack of opportunity to take part in meaningful activities to help support people’s mental well-being. There was a small garden to the front and a larger one at the back of the service. Neither were accessible to people. One person told us they would like more to do, they commented; “I don’t do a lot, I sleep quite a bit” another told us; “I hope to help in the garden as soon as I can walk again.”

Both days of the inspection visits were hot, and some people took the opportunity to sit in the sun on the small seating area outside the front door. There were no hats available for protection. Staff did not remind people to use sun cream. On the second day one person was sitting in direct sun in the early afternoon with their face, arms and legs exposed. We pointed this out to the registered manager who immediately provided sun cream for the person.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There were systems for monitoring people’s health. For example, people’s weight was routinely monitored. Staff also recorded bowel movements on specific forms. This protected people from the risk of constipation.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Information about people’s capacity to consent to care was inconsistent. One person’s care plan stated; “[Name] is fully aware, [pronoun] is very capable of making decisions, [pronoun] is of enough sound mind to know what [pronoun] wants at the moment on [pronoun] personal care, daily living, eating and drinking and is very capable of doing this on a daily basis.” However, the registered manager told us they would not allow the person to leave the service without staff support as it would not be safe.

People were able to make day to decisions, for example, relating to what they ate and wore. One person told us; “Staff ask me how they can help me.”

Some people had signed forms to say they consented to their plan of care, and these were kept in their care plans.