Archived: Tunbury Avenue

Updated 12 January 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal

requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC's response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 18 December 2020 and was unannounced.

Updated 12 January 2021

The inspection took place on 3 January 2018 and was unannounced.

151 Tunbury Avenue is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and personal care as a 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 provides support for up to four adults with a learning disability. There were three people living at the service at the time of our inspection including people with autism, physical and sensory disabilities.

The service was run by a registered manager who was present on the day of our visit. They were registered to manage this service and another small service in the local area which is registered with the same provider. 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.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in November 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’ in the areas with the exception of Well-led which was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. Audits had not been undertaken in line with the provider’s quality assurance policy.

At this inspection, in January 2018 internal and external audits were in place and systems were effective in identifying any shortfalls in service delivery.

Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse and knew how to follow the provider’s safeguarding procedures to raise concerns.

Staffing levels had been maintained to ensure there were enough staff available to meet people’s physical, social and emotional needs. Staff continued to be recruited safely and had been through a selection process that ensured they were fit to work with people who needed safeguarding.

People continued to have their needs assessed and their care was planned to maintain their safety, health and wellbeing. Risks were assessed and staff guidance in place about how these risks could be minimised. There were effective systems in place to monitor incidents, accidents and near misses.

Medicines were managed, stored, disposed of and administered safely. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

Staff had received training in infection control and followed this guidance to help minimise the spread of any infection.

Staff continued to receive the training they needed for their roles and to be supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS applications had been made to ensure that people were only deprived of their liberty, when it had been assessed as lawful to do so. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to support people's best interest if they lacked capacity.

People’s health, social and physical needs were assessed and clear guidance was in place to ensure they were effectively monitored. Care plans included information about people’s personal history and what was important to them so staff could meet their needs and individual preferences.

People continued to experience care that was caring and compassionate. People’s likes and dislikes and non-verbal signs were taken into consideration when making decisions about their care and treatment. Staff respected and valued people’s contributions and understood how to communicate with people in a way they understood.

There were policies in place that ensured people would be listened to and treated fairly if they complained about the service.

The registered manager was approachable and the atmosphere in the service was relaxed and informal. They were supported by a staff team who understood the aims of the service and were motivated to support people according to their choices and preferences.