We carried out a review of the data available to us about 25-27 Teewell Avenue on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 25-27 Teewell Avenue, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they were safe and liked living in Teewell Avenue. People were supported by staff who had been through a robust recruitment process, received training and were supported. There were sufficient staff to ensure people received the care and support they needed. People’s medicines were managed safely.
Infection, prevention and control measures were in line with the latest best practice guidance.
Staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. People were encouraged to take positive risks.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The provider and registered manager were visible within the service. People were involved in their care and care was delivered in person centred way. Systems to monitor the quality of the care and support were robust and effective at ensuring people received safe care which had positive outcomes. The registered manager and the staff worked with other agencies and kept up to date with best practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 22 September 2017). The service continues to be rated good based on the findings of this inspection.
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated good and outstanding.
This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions safe, and well led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
This inspection took place on 23 August 2017. The inspection was unannounced, this meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
At the last inspection in June 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’.
At this inspection, we found the service remained ‘Good’.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
We found the service had a calm, relaxed and homely atmosphere. We were welcomed warmly by people and staff who were open, honest and helpful throughout our inspection.
People were safe. Staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work with people to assess their suitability. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed. Measures to prevent the spread of infection were in place.
The service was effective in meeting people’s needs. Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Arrangements were made for people to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. People had access to the food and drink they chose when they wanted it. The physical environment was personalised and met people’s needs.
People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s views were sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was provided in ways that were easy to understand.
The service was responsive to people’s needs. People received person centred care and support. They were offered a range of activities both at the service and in the local community. People were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes.
People received a service that was well led. The registered manager was well liked and respected by people and staff. They provided good leadership and management and were in turn well supported by the provider. The safety and quality of service people received was monitored on a regular basis and where shortfalls were identified they were rectified.
25-27 Teewell Avenue provides accommodation and personal care for six people. People who live at the home have mental health needs. This was an unannounced inspection, which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
People were receiving care that was responsive and effective. Care plans were in place that described how the person would like to be supported. This included the early warning signs that a person’s mental health was changing. The care plans provided staff with information to support the person effectively. People had been consulted about their care needs and their views sought about the service. Systems were in place to ensure that complaints were responded to.
Other health and social professionals were involved in the care of people and referrals to other agencies were made as required. Safe systems were in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.
People were encouraged to be independent and some had full control over their money, medicines and could access the community independently. Others chose to go out with staff and the staff assisted them with their medicines and looking after their money. There was enough staff to support people both in the home and the community and to respond to their changing needs.
Staff were caring and supportive and demonstrated a good understanding of their roles in supporting people. Staff received training and support that was relevant to their roles. Systems were in place to ensure important information was shared amongst the team to ensure a consistent approach to people’s care.
People could be confident that where an allegation of abuse was raised the staff would do the right thing. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults enabling them to respond and report any allegations of abuse. Staff felt confident that any concerns raised by themselves or the people would be responded to appropriately in respect of an allegation of abuse.
The service was well led. There were systems to monitor the quality and seek the views of people to improve the service.
People appeared happy and relaxed at the home. People we spoke with told us they were happy and that the staff were kind. People had comprehensive and individualised care plans. Risk had been assessed and plans developed to manage any risk identified.
The provider had appropriate systems in place to obtain, store administer, record and dispose of medicines safely. Each person had a medicines profile which reminded staff they were entitled to refuse to take their medicines. Where covert medicine was administered a best interest decision had been made.
There were sufficient skilled and experienced staff working within the home.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care and to identify any risk to the health and welfare of people living there.
People told us that it felt like their home and they said that the food was good and the staff were nice. People told us staff were kind and treated them with respect
Two people told us that they did not like having to shower .
Two people at the home chose to smoke so the home had allocated the conservatory as an indoor smoking area.