St Matthews Limited - The Avenue

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 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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People's care plans contained adequate guidance for staff on how to support people appropriately and safely. We found care plans reflected recent changes to people’s care and support needs.

People and relatives told us they had been involved in the review of people care needs. For example, a relative told us, “I’ve sat through a care plan with [the manager] in the last six months.” Another relative told us, “[Relative] has a care plan, we did a review a few months ago.” This assured us that care plans had been developed in line with people’s individual preferences and supported the delivery of person-centred care.

People’s rooms had been personalised to their individual preferences and we observed staff knocking before entering. We received feedback from several relatives that they didn’t feel the service always looked after people’s personal possessions. For example, relatives told us about lost or broken clothing, glasses and a watch. We shared this feedback with the registered manager who told us they were aware of some of the concerns and had already replaced or were in the process of replacing or reimbursing. The provider assured us they would share this feedback with the team and consider what learning they could do to improve this feedback.

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.

Staff had specific or enhanced training with regards to meeting the needs of the people they supported. For example, staff completed dementia awareness training to help support people living with dementia.

The provider had previously introduced an Assistant Practitioner development programme to develop care staff to carry out delegated tasks under the supervision of registered nurses. For example, medicines administration. Although this programme had been successfully introduced to support the delivery of the care provision at The Avenue, we suggested the provider clarify the lines of accountability for delegated tasks in a formal policy.

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

Since 2016 onwards, all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.
 

The provider assessed people’s communication needs as part of their care plan and recorded people’s communication preferences. For example, one care plan described how staff needed to speak clearly and slowly to support a person’s understanding. There was dementia friendly signage seen throughout the home.

The provider had a ‘residents handbook’ specific to The Avenue for new people joining the service. The provider told us this was available in other accessible formats and where a person’s first language was not English.

The provider produced a regular newsletter to keep people, relatives and staff up to date with the latest news at The Avenue. Photos of staff were displayed in the home to help people, relatives and visitors identify those working at the home.

Staff received Data Protection training, and we observed staff were mindful about discussing people’s needs in communal areas.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints, suggestions and compliments policy and there was systems and processes to record and monitor all feedback. We saw the provider had a complaints and compliments log and learning was recorded where necessary and shared in a regular learning log.

The provider carried out regular satisfaction surveys for people and relatives, and findings were evaluated and followed a ‘you said, we did’ approach. Relatives told us there were regular relatives meetings. A relative said, “I attend the relatives meetings they are useful sometimes.” Another relative said, “‘I’ve attended the relatives meetings, it’s just an update really.”

We saw the provider received a positive carehome.co.uk review from a relative during our assessment, complimenting The Avenue on the care the service was delivering for a person living at the home.

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

Records showed that staff worked different multi-disciplinary team members, including GPs, dentists, opticians, speech and language, dieticians and chiropodists to make sure people received care and support when they required it.

There were no restrictions of when relatives could visit people living and the home. One relative told us, “I can come when I like and as often as I like. I eat with [relative] almost everyday.”

The provider had an on-call policy so a manager could always be contacted. There was a business continuity plan in place that provided guidance for staff in the event of a disruption to care delivery.

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 experienced equitable and inclusive care, and the home took steps to ensure individuals received support that met their diverse needs. Staff understood people’s cultural backgrounds, communication preferences, and personal histories, and used this knowledge to provide care that was sensitive and person centred.

Care plans clearly reflected people’s individual requirements, and staff adapted their approach to ensure everyone had equal opportunity to engage in daily life and make choices about their care. People told us they felt respected, listened to and treated fairly.

The provider had systems to monitor outcomes and identify where additional support might be needed, helping ensure that people received consistently positive experiences.

People were 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.

At the time of the assessment no one was receiving end of life care.

We saw end of life discussions had taken place and relatives told us they had been involved in these discussions and decisions. We also found that where appropriate decisions had been made in relation to people’s resuscitation status. For example, a relatives told us, “He’s got a DNR,” and “When [relative] had a care review a couple of months ago we covered the do not resuscitate decision and there was a discussion with the GP.”

We found there was evidence of discussions in relation to people’s resuscitation status in there care plans and that staff were aware of people’s resuscitation status or how to access this quickly on their records in an emergency.