You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 July 2018

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 28 June and 3 July 2018.

Autumn Vale is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is situated on the outskirts of Portsmouth, close to a bus route and local amenities. Autumn Vale can accommodate up to 25 people and there were 21 people living there at the time of our inspection.

We had conducted our previous unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 21 April 2016. Breaches of legal requirements had been found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they were going to do to meet legal requirements relating to the safe management of medicines. They also explained what action they were planning to take to ensure they would be able to effectively assess the quality of the service.

Following the full comprehensive inspection, we undertook a focused inspection on 17 July 2017 to check whether the service had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. We found the service had made significant improvements in the ‘safe’ and ‘well-led’ domains.

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 told us they felt safe at Autumn Vale Rest Home. Staff knew the correct procedures to follow if they considered someone was at risk of harm or abuse. They had received appropriate safeguarding training and there were policies and procedures in place to follow in case of an allegation of abuse.

People's safety was promoted as risks that may cause them harm in the service and in the local community had been identified and managed. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to keep people safe. Medicines were managed safely. All staff had received training in the safe management of medicines. The provider had systems in place to store medicines safely.

Procedures in relation to recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed at the service.

Staff working at the service were suitably qualified and skilled. Staffing numbers and shifts were managed to suit people's needs so that people received their care when they needed and wanted it. Staff had access to information, support and training they needed to provide people with satisfactory care. The provider’s training was designed to meet the needs of people using the service. As a result, staff had the knowledge they required to care for people effectively.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff were trained in the principles of the MCA and could describe how people were supported to make decisions. Where people did not have the capacity, decisions were made in their best interests.

People’s health and well-being were kept under review and staff liaised closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people received all the support they needed.

Care plans were informative and contained clear guidance for staff. They included information about people’s routines, personal histories, preferences and any situations which might cause people anxiety or stress. The plans clearly described how staff were supposed to support people in such circumstances.

People were provided with a range of activities which met their individual needs and interests. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships with their relatives and friends.

People knew how to raise concerns and make complaints. Complaints were recorded, inv

Inspection areas



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to abuse and they followed appropriate procedures.

Safe recruitment practices were implemented and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People were supported by staff who managed medicines consistently and safely. Medicines were stored and disposed of correctly and accurate records were kept.



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was effective.

People received care from staff who were trained to meet people’s individual needs. Staff were supported to deliver effective care as they received on-going training and regular management supervision.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice to help protect people’s rights.

People received the support they needed to maintain good health and well-being. Staff cooperated effectively with health and social care professionals to identify and meet people's needs.



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect. Staff understood how to provide care in a dignified manner and respected people's right to privacy and choice.

Staff had developed good relationships with people living at the home and there was a happy, relaxed atmosphere at the service. People told us they were well cared for.

People were involved in planning their care and support.



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People using the service had personalised care plans and their needs were regularly reviewed to ensure they received the right care and support.

Activities were meaningful and were planned in line with people’s interests.

The service had a complaints procedure that was accessible both to people who used the service and their relatives. When raised, issues had been responded to in an appropriate and timely manner.

Staff provided end-of-life care in a very responsive and compassionate way.



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was well-led.

There was an open and caring culture throughout the home. Staff understood the provider's values and put them into practice while delivering care to people.

The registered manager was praised both by people and staff. Staff told us they were able to approach the manager to raise their concerns and felt they were provided with good leadership.

The provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided to people. On-going audits were used to improve the support people received.