You are here

Choices Housing Association Limited - 17 Norton Avenue Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

This inspection took place on 6 June 2018 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection the service was rated as requires improvement. We found the provider was not meeting all the requirements of the law. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve to at least good. During this inspection we found that the provider had done what they said they would do and were no longer in breach of regulations.

Choices Housing Association Limited – 17 Norton Avenue 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.

17 Norton Avenue accommodates up to six people in one adapted building. At the time of this inspection there were four people using the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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 were protected from avoidable abuse and harm by well trained staff. Risks were assessed, identified and managed appropriately, with guidance for staff on how to mitigate risks. Premises and equipment were kept clean and tidy. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and staff had their suitability to work in a care setting checked before they began working with people. Medicines were now managed safely, following improvements to the systems in place. The registered manager had systems in place to learn when things went wrong.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported by well trained staff and received effective care in line with their support needs. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal which encouraged reflections on their practice with people and what they could do to further improve people’s experiences of receiving care and support. Staff had access to continuous training that was developed and delivered around people’s individual needs.

There was a good choice of food, which people enjoyed and they received support to meet their nutrition and hydration needs and to encourage independence. Staff were committed to supporting people to stay healthy and people achieved excellent outcomes resulting from staff’s commitment.

The environment was designed and adapted to support people effectively, including significant improvements being made to bathroom facilities to improve people’s choice, independence and comfort.

Healthcare professionals were consulted and staff worked collaboratively with them to help manage people’s complex health needs and to promote best practice. People were supported to access a wide range of healthcare services and were empowered to improve their quality of life and health. Innovative support was provided to encourage and support people to remain healthy. Links with health and social care professionals were excellent.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate with people. People were supported to express their views and encouraged and supported to make their own choices with a range of communication aids. People were treated with dignity and r

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. People's risks were managed to help them stay safe without restricting their freedom.

There were enough staff to respond to people's needs and medicines were safely managed.

People were protected from the spread of infection. Lessons were learned and improvements made when things went wrong.

Effective

Outstanding

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was consistently effective.

People's needs and choices were effectively assessed and care was delivered in line with professional guidance. The service had excellent links with healthcare professionals and worked collaboratively to ensure people's health was monitored and effective outcomes achieved.

Staff were well trained and supported to deliver effective care. People were supported to eat and drink enough and creative ways to encourage a healthy diet were utilised.

People's needs were met by the design and adaptation of the service and their consent to care was obtained in line with the law.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them well.

Staff made every effort to communicate effectively with people so that they could make their own choices and decisions. Staff supported people as much as possible to express their views.

People's dignity and independence was respected and encouraged.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care to meet their individual needs.

People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing care plans that were accurate, personalised and up to date.

People felt able to raise concerns and a suitable and accessible complaints procedure was in place.

People were supported to plan for their end of life care so that their wishes and preferences were catered for.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager in post who understood and complied with their responsibilities of registration with us.

There was an open and inclusive culture where people, relatives and staff were encouraged to be involved in the development of the service.

Effective governance systems were operated to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the support provided.

The service worked well in partnership with other agencies and sought to continually improve.