The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: SENSE - 41 Bryndale Avenue

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Flats 14 & 18, 41 Bryndale Avenue, Kings Heath, Birmingham, West Midlands, B14 6NQ (0121) 444 1365

Provided and run by:
Sense

All Inspections

11 and 12 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was undertaken on 11 and 12 December 2014 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in June 2014, we found that the provider had breached regulations relating to the environment. The provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make to ensure the service would comply with the regulations. Our findings from this inspection confirmed that the provider was not in breach of any regulations.

Bryndale Avenue is a care home that consists of three individual flats, there are no communal areas shared by people. The home provides accommodation and care for up to three people who have a learning disability and who are living with one or more sensory impairments. People were unable to communicate with us verbally but expressed their feelings through non-verbal communication.

There was a registered manager at this location. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were management systems in place to monitor the quality of the home. Where there had been incidents we found that there were inconsistencies in the learning that had taken place and actions taken to reduce the risk of similar occurrences.

People’s relatives told us that they had no concerns about their safety. Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of procedures in connection with the prevention of abuse. The relatives of people told us they had found the management team approachable and told us they would raise any complaints or concerns should they need to.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and support them to follow interests and pursuits they enjoyed. The home had a stable staff group who had built strong relationships with people who lived there. The home had a robust recruitment process to try to ensure the staff they employed were suitable and safe to work there.

Staff members had an in-depth knowledge of people and their needs. Staff had received training about the needs of deaf blind people and used the knowledge to communicate and support people to make choices in their day-to-day their life.

Staff understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

(DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. DoLS provide a lawful way to deprive someone of their liberty, provided it is in their own best interests or is necessary to keep them from harm.

Individual and general risks to people were identified and managed appropriately. The provider had invested in employing specialist staff to assess some of the needs of people such as with eating and drinking or the way people showed their feelings. The specialist staff had produced guides for care staff so that they had the information they needed to meet the complex needs of people living in the home.

We observed people being treated with dignity and respect. People’s relatives told us that the staff were kind, considerate and caring. People were supported in a wide range of interests and hobbies, usually on an individual basis, which were suited to their needs.

People were supported to access healthcare services to maintain and promote their health and well-being. Where staff had concerns about a person’s health they involved appropriate professionals to make sure people received the correct support.

Some aspects of the quality monitoring and self checking systems in the home were not always effective. Some issues had been identified but had not been fully addressed.

31 December 2013 and 6 January 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we met with all three people who were living at the home. Some people were not able to tell us about their views of the care they received due to their communication needs. We spoke with the relative of one person who lived at the home on the telephone after our visit. They told us they were very happy with the care provided.

We were not able to use a formal observational tool to assess people's experiences, as it would have been intrusive given that people live in their own individual flats.

We observed some interactions between people and the staff to help us understand their experiences. We saw that staff were kind, respectful and unhurried. They gave support with personal care in ways that respected people's dignity and privacy.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs.

Improvements were needed to the premises to make sure it was in good condition and met people's needs.

The provider had a robust system to support people to raise complaints.

15 January 2013

During a routine inspection

Four people were living at the home when we visited and we met with three of them. Some people were not able to speak with us because of their level of understanding and communication needs. We observed interactions between them and the staff to help us understand their experiences. We saw that staff were kind, respectful and unhurried. We spoke with one person at the home with assistance from a member of staff.

They gave support with personal care in ways that respected people's dignity and privacy. Care staff displayed good skills in communicating with people who use the service and made use of differing communication tools.

We spoke with two relatives of people who lived at the home. One relative told us they were very satisfied with the care provided. The second relative told us there had been issues but that the service was now much improved.

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. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

24 January 2011 and 18 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with all three people that were currently living at the home. However, two people because of their level of learning disability and communication needs were unable to tell us their views of the service.

One relative told us that they had attended one person's person centred planning meeting the previous week. The person was also involved in the meeting. They told us 'He is always involved in making decisions about his own life. The home is definitely meeting his needs'.

One person told us 'It's a good home, I play snooker, I go to church, I'm going to an organ recital'. They also told us they are always busy and go out most days.

A relative said 'The Home definitely meets X's health needs. He does a lot of activities but this could be improved by looking at new ones so they are not repetitive'.

One person told us 'Food is nice, I can choose'. One relative told us 'X is included in planning his meals, healthy eating is encouraged, he's encouraged to make his own meals'. Another relative said 'The meals since the new manager has been in post have improved, before there were too many ready meals'.

We spoke with a health care professional who had contact with one person who previously lived at the home. They told us that staff at the home were eager to seek advice or help from professionals when needed.

We spoke with one person and asked what they thought about their flat, they told us 'It's alright'. One relative told us 'His flat is very small but well maintained. They have identified the d'cor does not really reflect his personality so he is going to be making some decisions about the d'cor. They are looking at making the lounge and kitchen area open plan to make it larger but they do not own the property'. One relative told us 'The premises are clean' but that 'Maintenance could be better'.

One person who lives at the home told us 'Staff are nice'. One relative told us 'There is a good staff team, there's not a lot of agency staff, they do care for him'. Another relative said 'There's enough staff. They are looking to recruit a team of casual staff to work with him for when the other staff are off sick. They are looking at how they can include him in the interview process'.

We spoke with a health care professional who had contact with one person who previously lived at the home. They told us that staff were 'committed and engaged'.

One relative told us 'Previously staff have not had the right support but this seems to have been addressed'. Staff spoken with were all satisfied with the levels of support they get. Staff told us 'Good atmosphere since the new manager has been here, things have gone smoothly, we get enough support from managers. Any problems you can approach the managers'.

One relative told us 'The service is not fantastic but it is improving. They have not had the back up of a decent management team but I now feel action is being taken to address this'.

One person who lives at the home told us 'I would talk to the manager or staff if I was not happy about things'. We spoke to two relatives about making complaints. One relative told us 'I've never had cause to complain but any minor concerns we have had have been addressed' another relative said 'I am able to raise things, I feel things are acted on now, but maybe not before'.