• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Avalon Residential Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

17 Barnwood Road, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, GL2 0RZ (01452) 417400

Provided and run by:
A.R.T.I. Services Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

31 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 31 March and 1 and 8 April 2015.

Avalon provides residential care for up to 19 older people. The home is a detached house with accommodation on three floors. People have access to a communal lounge and separate dining room. All bedrooms have ensuite toilet facilities, five bedrooms also have an ensuite shower and there is a bathroom on each floor. The gardens at the front were accessible for people. There were 16 people accommodated on the first day of our inspection visit and 17 people on the final day.

There was a registered manager. 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.

Three ‘whistle blowers’ contacted us before the inspection. A whistle blower is a member of staff who raises concerns that affect people and may put them at risk from poor care or abuse. We looked at all the concerns raised during our visit.

People were not supported by sufficient staff with the appropriate skills, experience and knowledge to meet their needs. People sometimes had to wait for assistance and staff were rushed. The provider responded to our concerns quickly and additional staff were rostered for the mornings.

We identified several maintenance issues that may have put people at risk from injury and some were rectified during the inspection visit. The home was under refurbishment and there were improvements and additional bedrooms. More improvements were planned for the year to increase communal space and continue with refurbishment of all rooms.

Medicines were stored safely and administration records were complete but there was a need for improvements to the procedure for giving people their medicines. Staff had been trained to give medicines and the provider told us they would monitor their practice.

Staff knew people well and how they liked to be cared for. Care plans were personalised and people were involved with planning their care. People were safeguarded from harm because staff were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns. Risk assessments were completed which reduced risks for people, helping to keep them safe and independent. People described the service as safe and said they felt safe. They told us it was homely and they were looked after by kind staff. Staff were trained to keep people safe and knew who to contact if they had concerns.

People had access to healthcare professionals to promote their health and wellbeing but there was a need to improve the information recorded for healthcare professionals to review progress. People told us that healthcare professionals supported them well.

People had a choice of meals and they told us the food was good. The risk of malnutrition was monitored and people had professional support where required. Special diets were catered for and people’s personal food preferences were taken into account when planning menus.

People took part in activities. They were able to make suggestions for new activities but there was no clear organisation of activities as the person that organised them had left. Care staff provided some activities but had little time to plan them. Trips out were occasionally organised.

The arrangements for managing the home had been through some changes due to staff sickness and staff did not feel well supported. Monthly quality assurance checks were completed by the registered manager and senior staff had meetings to discuss any health and safety issues. There was a programme of audits completed to include medicines, care plans and people’s personal monies. People had residents meetings and were able to choose what activities they would like to do. People had not completed any surveys to check the quality of the service since 2013.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We completed this inspection at a time when the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 were in force. However, the regulations changed on 1 April 2015; therefore this is what we have reported on. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

2 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this visit to check if shortfalls found at our inspection of September 2013 had been met. Our inspection of 10 September 2013 found that people's personal records were not always accurate or fit for purpose. This was because, although the home's practice was in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, records did not always evidence this.

The provider wrote to us and told us assessments of people's mental capacity to make day-today decisions would be completed for everyone living in the home. The provider also told us that these assessments would be kept under regular review. The provider told us that these changes would be implemented by 31 October 2013.

At this visit we found that the compliance action set in September 2013 had been met. We saw in all the six care records we looked at that an assessment of the individual's mental capacity to make day-to-day decisions had been completed. The provider had implemented a system for keeping these assessments under regular review.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. An application to cancel this registration had been received by the Care Quality Commission and was being processed at the time of our visit.

10 September 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time of this inspection. We have advised the provider of what they need to do to remove the individual's name from our register.

During our visit we spoke with five people living in the home and four visiting relatives. People we spoke with told us they were happy living in the home and could make choices about their daily living. We observed staff talking to people about how they wanted to spend their time and what they wanted to eat and drink. Staff we spoke with showed that they had a clear understanding of involving people in day-to-day decisions about their care.

People we spoke with told us, 'very good, everybody is considerate and patient' and 'I like living here'. Relatives we spoke with told us, 'the home is lovely and friendly', 'Staff always talk to the residents' and 'you can turn up at any time of the day'.

Care was provided in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. The provider sought the views of people who used the service and used these comments to improve and develop the service. We found that although the home's practice was in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 records did not always evidence this.

13 November 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with five people living in the home and a relative who was visiting on the day. We also spent time with people in the communal areas. People we spoke with told us they were very happy living in the home and were able to make choices about their daily living. One person told us 'I like to have a bath on Saturdays but I could have a bath on other days if I wanted to'.

Care plans were personalised to each individual's needs and were detailed enough to provide appropriate care. Risk assessments had been completed where necessary and all care records were reviewed monthly. People's medicines were managed safely and checks were carried out to monitor staff practice. Staff were appropriately trained and showed good knowledge of the people they cared for. People told us 'Staff are all very nice, I'm alright living here' and 'staff are very good and caring'.

The home regularly asked people who used the service, their representatives and other professionals for their views about the care and support the home provided. When feedback was given by people the home acted on it and used these comments to improve the service.

10 February 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke (five individuals) with about the living in the home told us: "it's a nice place, friendly and helpful", "its a nice place I like it", "suits me down to the ground,better then I expected".

Individuals we spoke too told us about the food provided in the home though this is not a standard we looked at; "it's lovely always a choice", "food is improving though could do with more variety", "I enjoy the meals here they know what I like and don't like".

One person had commented as part of their care plan review: "I am well settled here and have nothing but praise for all the people here we all get well looked after in all ways".

When asked about staff people said: "they are all very good and kind", "they definitely treat you with respect", "always there when you need them".

We asked one person if there was anything that could be improved and they said "nothing could be better".

The district nurse we spoke with told us she felt it was a good home and that staff respond well to individuals health needs and any changes "if they have concerns they will ring us".