• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Availl (Norwich)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Grosvenor House, 112-114 Prince Of Wales Road, Norwich, Norfolk, NR1 1NS (01603) 633999

Provided and run by:
Radibor Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

04 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Availl (Norwich) is registered to provide personal care to people who live in their own homes. There were 23 people using the service when we visited. The inspection took place on 04 June 2015 and we gave the provider 48-hours’ notice before we visited. This was to ensure that the registered manager was available to facilitate the inspection.

The last inspection was carried out on 10 June 2014 when we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 we assessed against.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about reporting any abuse. There were a sufficient number of staff to provide care safely and recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. Risk assessments were in place and actions were taken to reduce identified risks. Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were supported and protected with the safe management of medicines.

Staff were generally supported and trained to do their job but additional training was needed for specific care needs to be fully met. Staff had not received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This legislation sets out how to proceed when people do not have capacity and what guidelines must be followed to ensure that peoples freedoms are not restricted.

The staff were in contact with a range of health care professionals to ensure that care and support was well coordinated. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that care and support could be safely provided.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their care and support was provided in a caring and a patient way.

A complaints procedure was in place and complaints had been responded to. People were able to raise concerns with the staff at any time.

The provider had quality assurance processes and procedures in place to monitor the quality and safety of people’s care. People and their relatives were able to make suggestions in relation to the support and care provided.

3, 10 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer the questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service caring?

People were generally pleased with the service and felt that they received good care. We were told that care staff were, 'Very good indeed'.

We saw that people's care was planned in accordance with their wishes and was regularly reviewed to ensure that it continued to meet their needs.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service was responsive to people's wishes and their diverse needs. Care plans were agreed with the people using the service, or their representatives, and adjusted in response to any changes in these needs. Feedback was encouraged and acted on.

Is the service safe?

People using the service told us that they felt that care and support was provided to them in a safe manner, for example when they needed assistance in moving around.

People's care plans contained the information needed to provide them with safe care. Risks to people in their daily lives, for example from allergic reactions or from falls, were recorded and assessed. This helped staff to be aware of the care and assistance people needed to keep them safe.

We saw that the provider had carried out the necessary checks to ensure that staff were of good character and had the training and guidance needed to provide safe care and support. Policies and guidance informed staff of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and of signs that people may be suffering abuse. Staff we spoke with were confident that they knew what to do if they saw, or suspected, any abuse.

Is the service effective?

People received the care and support they required to improve their health and well-being. One person who was recovering from a fall told us, 'They have helped me no end'.

Is the service well led?

Staff were well supported by competent managers. They received appropriate supervision and training and were clear about their responsibilities.

Efficient systems were in place to regularly check and monitor the quality of the service.

Care records were written in detail and provided clear guidance to staff. People we spoke with confirmed that the service was meeting their needs.