We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cromwell Avenue on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cromwell Avenue, you can give feedback on this service.
The service provides care and support to people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum conditions. Five people were being supported by the service at the time of the inspection.
People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People experienced good care and support. They were supported to live safe, fulfilled and meaningful lives in the way they wanted to.
People were supported with healthy eating and to maintain a healthy weight, with specialist diets when required. People who needed assistance with meal preparation were supported and encouraged to make choices about what they ate and drank.
The support staff demonstrated an excellent knowledge of people’s care needs, significant people and events in their lives, and their daily routines and preferences. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns
Staff told us they really enjoyed working in the home and spoke positively about the culture and management of the service. Staff told us that they were encouraged to openly discuss any issues. Staff said they enjoyed their jobs and described management as supportive. Staff confirmed they were able to raise issues and make suggestions about the way the service was provided.
The service was safe and there were appropriate safeguards in place to help protect the people who lived there. People were able to make choices about the way in which they were cared for. Staff listened to them and knew their needs well. Staff had the supervision, training and support they needed.
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home. People’s medicines were managed appropriately so they received them safely.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People using the service 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 supported this practice.
The service ensured people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. People also received emotional support when needed. People told us they were involved in planning the care and support they received and were able to maintain their independence as much as possible. Information was provided to people in formats they could understand.
Care plans were personalised and described the holistic care and support each person required, together with details of their strengths and aspirations. Information also explained how people could be supported to ensure they consistently had a good quality of life. People’s comments and concerns were listened to and taken seriously.
People who used the service and staff spoke highly of the management team and told us they felt supported. CQC’s registration requirements were met and complied with and effective quality assurance procedures were in place.
People participated in a range of different social activities and were supported to access the local community. They also participated in shopping for the home and their own needs.
The registered manager and staff ensured everyone was supported to maintain good health. Staff took a very proactive approach to ensuring people's complex health needs were always met, and consistently ensured that when people needed specialist input from health care professionals they got it.
Staff were caring and always ensured they treated people with dignity and respect. They had a good understanding of the care and support needs of every person living in the home. People had developed very positive relationships with staff and there was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere in the home.
The service was well led. There was a clear set of values in place which all the staff put into practice. The registered manager regularly completed quality assurance checks, to make sure the high standards of care were maintained. There was an open culture and staff said they felt well motivated and valued.
The service provides care and support to people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum conditions. Five people were being supported by the service at the time of the inspection.
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.
There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people from avoidable harm. The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient staff to support people safely. People’s medicines were managed safely.
Staff received regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided. Where people did not have capacity to consent to their care or make decisions about some aspects of their care, this was managed in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives. People had adequate food and drinks to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were also supported to access other health services when required.
People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. They were involved in reviewing their care plans. People had busy lives and were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests, including some of them taking part in competitive sports.
The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and other professionals, and they acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.
The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive continuous improvements. They had recently updated some of their audit forms and the manager needed more time to get used to the new system. Staff said that the manager provided stable leadership and effective support. They also promoted a caring and inclusive culture within the service.
We found that people experienced care and support that was individually tailored to their needs. One person who used the service told us that, 'I love it here, it's my home, and they let me keep all my animals.'
We looked at records that showed us staff had received sufficient training relating to safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate their knowledge of abuse and the provider's safeguarding policy.
Records we looked at showed us that staff received annual appraisals and regular supervision to discuss and review their performance. We also found that staff received regular training that was relevant to their role. One member of staff told us, 'Whatever support of guidance I need from the manager they give me without fail."
We saw from records that the provider had systems in place to ensure they reviewed the quality of their service. Risks were regularly reviewed, assessed and managed to reduce risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.
The staff were friendly and courteous in their approach to people and interacted confidently with them. We noted that people were encouraged to express their views about the quality of care in the home. They were also involved in planning their care, making decisions about their support and treatment, and how they spent their time. One person told us 'I love living here.' Within the care files we saw that people and or their families had been involved with, and agreed with the particular care needs that had been identified for them.
Staff told us that they felt well supported by the management and said the management were 'very approachable.' However, we noted that the majority of staff were not having supervision in line with the provider's policy and none of the nine staff had received an appraisal.