Archived: Choices Housing Association Limited - 10 Whitfield Avenue

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

This is a summary of what we found:

' Is the service safe?

Robust safeguarding procedures were in place. Staff understood their role in relation to safeguarding and had clear instructions about how to report abuse. People using the service had a regular meeting with staff when they were shown a DVD and a pictorial procedure for reporting abuse.

The provider had a system for monitoring quality and safety to ensure that people received safe and appropriate care and treatment. Monthly quality audits of the service had been carried out by the provider.

There was an effective staff recruitment and selection process in place. References and checks had been obtained to ensure people were suitable for employment before they commenced work. This protected people against unsuitable staff and the potential risk of harm.

We monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards 2009 that apply to care homes. This applies where people's liberty may be restricted, usually to protect themselves or others and has to be approved by an independent body. Whilst no applications had needed to be submitted, correct policies and procedures were in place. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how it should be submitted

Following our last inspection we saw that the provider had followed recommendations from the fire safety officer to protect people from the risk of fire. There were clear instructions for staff to follow to reduce risks in their daily fire checks. .

' Is the service effective?

Detailed plans of care had been compiled involving people who used the service. Individual risk assessments had been completed with risk management plans outlining the actions to be taken to reduce risks. The assessments had been regularly reviewed. This meant people's safety had been monitored closely.

People's health care needs had been assessed and referrals made to a range of external health care professionals where necessary. Advice from the professionals had been recorded and actions taken to ensure people had the quality of care they needed to meet their health care needs.

Where people did not have capacity to make complex decisions about their care, relatives had been involved to ensure their best interests were followed. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed.

People had been involved in a range of community activities that promoted their wellbeing and quality of life.

' Is the service caring?

Care records contained detailed information about people's likes and dislikes and their preferences and choices about the way they wished to be supported. People had been involved in compiling their care records. This meant that their views had been sought and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's choices. .

Staff were supported by kind and attentive staff in a way that respected their dignity. A relative we spoke with told us, 'The staff are really good. X goes on holiday twice a year. I see the diaries and photographs of the holidays. I am very happy with the life X has had at Whitfield Avenue.'

Staff engaged well with people and they had open discussions. We saw that staff provided encouragement, explanation and support to the two people who were to leave the home in the next few weeks and move to new settings. Staff spoke with them in a positive and reassuring way about the future

' Is the service responsive?

People were aware how to make a complaint. There were clear procedures stating how complaints would be handled. No complaints had been received since our last inspection.

We saw that minutes of staff meetings and residents meetings had been actioned to improve the quality of the service. Staff told us they felt able to raise any concerns or suggestions to improve the service and they were listened to.

' Is the service well-led?

Following our last inspection a registered manager was appointed after a period of several changes of manager The new manager worked one day each week at Whitfield Avenue. An assistant manager covered the home for the remainder of the week. This had provided greater continuity in managing the home.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. Weekly and monthly safety checks had been carried out and a monthly quality audit completed by the provider's quality manager.

We saw that changes had been made in response to checks and audits. The views of people using the service, staff and relatives had been sought and improvements made to the quality of the service as a result.

During our inspection we spoke with two people who used the service. One person we spoke with said, "I like it duck" when asked if they were satisfied with the service they received.

Through a process called 'pathway tracking' we looked at the care records of one person, observed the care people received and spoke to the staff. We did this to see if people's needs were being met.

Care records were personal to the individual, provided detailed information about their needs and were reviewed regularly so that potential risks were reduced.

The environment was suitable to meet the needs of people who used the service, but some aspects of the environment had not been upgraded to ensure that potential risks to people were minimised. The provider has been provided with fire safety officer recommendations about this aspect of the service.

The staff we spoke with confirmed that they had received suitable induction and training to enable them to support people appropriately.

Records kept in the home were informative and regularly reviewed to ensure they provided an up to date account of people's needs.

We spoke with two people, one relative, one member of staff and the manager. People who used the service told us that they liked living in the home. One person said, "It's okay here I can do what I want to do and can go out when I like". A relative we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care provided.

People we spoke with were positive about their experiences at Whitfield Avenue; they were able to have free access to all areas of their home, participate in household tasks and were supported to be independent. We saw that people were supported to make decisions and were involved in the planning of their care. We saw that people were treated with care and respect.

We saw that people were supported to access the community and that appropriate risk management plans were in place to promote independence.

There were robust systems in place for the management of medication.

We saw that staff had the required knowledge and skills to provide the level of care that people required. Sufficient staff were provided to meet people's needs.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to, but said that they were happy with the support.