Averlea Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There were no organised activities provided for people. A member of staff told us they had discussed playing bingo recently but had not been able to due to an unexpected event. The registered manager told us people were reluctant to engage with activities. We were concerned people had become accustomed to not having opportunities for meaningful engagement and staff did not have access to equipment or materials to provide creative pastimes. No one could recall going out in recent months, except to attend appointments. People commented; “I wouldn’t mind going to the pub but would need help” and “We don’t do much, and don’t go out.”

Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences. We saw many friendly and positive interactions between staff and people. Care plans contained information about people’s histories and backgrounds. The registered manager told us they worked with families to understand people and develop their care plans further as they got to know people properly.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service was based in a village location and the provider also ran a domiciliary care agency in the local area. There was a stable staff team and a strong sense the service was part of the local community. Relatives talked of the service having ‘a family feel’. One commented; “The home is well regarded around here, and my mother was here many years ago, and I’ll probably arrive at some point as well”.

We heard staff talking to visitors and asking after their well-being. Staff clearly knew people, and their visitors, well and supported them.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care plans contained information about any communication needs. For example, if people needed glasses for reading or any hearing aids. A menu for the day was clearly displayed where people would see it.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was no information displayed in the service about raising a complaint. The registered manager told us no complaints had been raised by people. People were not involved in care plan reviews.

People had been asked for their feedback around the direct support they received and menus. The feedback had been positive.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Records showed staff communicated with specialist agencies when necessary. For example, speech and language therapists and district nurses. The registered manager told us they had a good relationship with the local surgery. A GP completed a weekly ward round so people who were cared for in bed had equal access to clinical advice.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People and their relatives did not report any concerns in relation to their experience of discrimination and inequality. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities that affected outcomes for people they supported. The service had an Equality and Diversity policy.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

There was no evidence people had been supported to make decisions about their care at the end of their lives. There were no end-of-life care plans in people’s records. The registered manager told us families often held this information and they would clarify this in care records.