Avenues South East - 87 Westbrook Avenue

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There were robust assessments of needs both when people moved to Westbrook Avenue, and on a regular basis to ensure that staff could continue to safely meet their needs. These were reviewed with the involvement of people, their families and relevant professionals. For example, one person had recently become more anxious and their prescribed medication was not proving effective in relieving the cause of their distress. The provider analysed incidents around this, and sought specialist input from the GP and PBS teams. As a result of this the medication was changed and additional guidance put in place for how to support this person manage their emotions, which we saw had reduced instances of distress significantly.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

There was clear evidence-based guidance in place to ensure staff received care that aligned with best practice for their specific health and care needs. Staff were confident in explaining up to date guidance of how they would support the people they worked with. This included around use of medically invasive or higher risk equipment such as feeding tubes and hoists, which staff were specifically trained in and knowledgeable of how to use. There was regular engagement with health professionals for both people being supported to ensure the support they received continued to meet their needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

All staff we spoke with had a detailed knowledge of the people they worked with and how to support them safely and to have maximum control over their lives. People had a dedicated key worker who was responsible for reviewing their care with them or their families, but all staff had the information and knowledge to support people in a consistent way. One person had strategies in place to support their emotional wellbeing if they were to become distressed, and all staff were able to confidently describe how they would give this person space to allow them to process their emotions in their own time.

Staff spoke of pride in their team and how they communicated with each other, such as if people’s needs had changed and around handovers between shifts. One staff member told us “I’m proud of my team. They work well together, and help each other through rough patches”.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff worked creatively with people to support them in living healthier lives, including regular support to access health appointment such as with dentist, chiropodists and GP’s. Both people living at Westbrook Avenue had been supported to access regular learning disability health checks with their GP to review their health and wellbeing, with the guidance from these and all health appointments clearly recorded in their health plans. There was a focus on preventative strategies to promote people’s wellbeing, for example around constipation which posed a higher risk of harm to people with a learning disability. Guidance for staff to prevent constipation focused on encouraging positive hydration and regular exercise, and we saw people were given frequent opportunities and encouragement to be physically active.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There were robust systems in place to monitor people’s care to ensure it remained safe and met their expectations. Incidents were clearly recorded and learned from, with referrals to specialist services proactively sought if they noticed changes in people’s health or wellbeing. There were regular meetings with people and their loved ones to discuss what people wanted to achieve from their care, including reviewing progress against goals or aspirations that had been identified.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

There was a positive culture at the service which promoted individuals’ rights and freedoms. All staff had been trained around the principles of consent and one staff member explained “For (person name) it is important to allow them have independence and personal space. I always knock and ask consent”. We saw from care records that people had the right to decline activities and tasks, and had freedom in how they spend their day. However, staff would work with them to explain the benefits or risks around individual decisions.

Where people had been assessed as to not have mental capacity in certain areas, there were best interest meetings held with their representatives and health and care professionals to allow a decision to be made on their behalf. There were records clearly setting out why the decision had been made, what other alternatives had been considered and how often this decision would be reviewed.