You are here

Archived: The Avenue Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

We inspected this service on 15 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced. Avenue Care Home is a care home registered for a maximum of four adults who have mental health needs. The service is currently a home for women only.

At the time of our inspection there were two people living at the service. No one was detained under the Mental Health Act or under formal supervision in the community.

The service is located in a terraced house, on two floors with access to a front and back garden.

We previously inspected the service on 7 January 2014 and the service was found to be meeting the regulations.

Avenue Care Home had a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

Referrals to the service could be made by local authorities. People had to be under the care of the local community mental health team.

During the inspection there was a calm and pleasant atmosphere. People using the service informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided. They said that they were treated with dignity and respect and we observed good quality interactions between staff and people using the service.

Staff were fully aware of people’s needs as a result of working with people using the service and information provided by the staff from the community mental health team. Their needs were documented within detailed care plans. Staff responded quickly to people’s change in needs if they were physically or mentally unwell.

Care records were individualised and reflected their choices, likes and dislikes, and arrangements were in place to ensure that these were responded to. Care plans provided detailed information on people’s health needs which were closely monitored. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to healthcare professionals, such as GPs, the local community mental health team (including mental health professionals and social work staff) and the local general hospital.

Risk assessments had been carried out and these contained guidance for staff on protecting people. Care plans were developed and updated with input from health and social care professionals.

People were promoted to live full and active lives and were supported to access activities in the wider community if they wished. People’s cultural and religious needs were actively facilitated by staff.

People had their medicines managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and on time. Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with training to enable them to care effectively for people, although three staff required formal training in medicines management. Storage and management of medicines was well managed with clear processes in place.

Staff felt supported and there was always a manager available on call, but there was no evidence of regular supervision documented. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse and described what action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff told us they felt confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs.

The home had comprehensive arrangements for quality assurance. Regular audits and checks had been carried out by the registered manager.

We found the premises were clean and tidy. The home had an infection control policy and measures were in place for infection control. There was a record of essential inspections and maintenance carried out. There was clear documentation relating to complaints and incidents.

Management of money for people using the service was well managed and organised.

People told us the management was a visible presence within the home. Staff talked positively about their jobs telling us they enjoyed their work and felt valued. The staff we met were caring, kind and compassionate.

The building was not suitable for people with significant mobility problems although this was not an issue for the people who used the service at this point in time as nobody had any mobility problems.

We have made recommendations in relation to staff training and supervision.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was safe. There were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse, and the service acted appropriately to protect people. People felt safe.

Risks had been identified and managed appropriately. Assessments had been carried out in line with individual need to support and protect people.

Medicines were administered safely and as prescribed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was not always effective. People received care and support that met their needs.

Most staff had received appropriate training in the Mental Capacity Act and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and staff displayed a good understanding of the requirements of the act.

Not all staff had received formal training in managing medicines. This is an additional safeguard in safe medicines management.

The registered manager provided a mentoring role to staff on a regular basis but this was not formalised in supervision records.

People were supported to have their choices and preferences met. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was caring. People were supported by staff that promoted independence, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

Religious and cultural needs were actively supported by staff.

Positive caring relationships had been formed between people and staff.

People were informed and actively involved in decisions about their care and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was responsive. Care records were personalised and met people’s individual needs.

Staff knew how people wanted to be supported.

People were supported to do activities that were meaningful and were planned in line with their interests.

People’s experiences were taken into account to drive improvements to the service.

There was a complaints policy in place, and complaints were managed in line with this policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The service was well-led. There was a clear objective for the running of the service.

There was good leadership provided by the registered manager.

There was evidence of audits taking place in a number of areas to ensure the service offered was of a high standard.

The service was well regarded by the local mental health team and staff were motivated to develop and provide quality care.