You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 February 2020

About the service:

Avalon Nursing Home provides nursing and personal care for up to 38 older people, some of whom were living with a dementia type illness. There were 27 people living at the home at the time of the inspection. In addition to living with dementia people had a range of complex health care needs which included stroke and diabetes. Most people required help and support from two members of staff in relation to their mobility and personal care needs.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

Systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided were in place. However, there were areas of people’s documentation that needed to be improved to ensure staff had the necessary up to date information to provide consistent, safe care. Whilst care plans identified a care need, there was a lack of clear guidance and changes to care needs were not clearly defined.

People received safe care and support from staff who had been appropriately recruited, trained to recognise signs of abuse or risk and understood what to do to safely support people. One person said, “Home from home here, very safe here, I get on with everybody so that helps.” A visitor told us, “Very safe here, the staff are kind and caring; they treat her with dignity and respect.” People were supported to take positive risks, to ensure they had as much choice and control of their lives as possible. Medicines being given safely to people by trained and knowledgeable staff, who had been assessed as competent. There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Safe recruitment practices had been followed before staff started working at the service.

Staff had all received training to meet people’s specific needs. During induction, they got to know people and their needs well. One staff member said, “I love working here, I have done lots of training.” People’s nutritional and health needs were consistently met with involvement from a variety of health and social care professionals.

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

Everyone we spoke to was consistent in their views that staff were kind, caring and supportive. One person said, “It is a safe place for me, it is the support I get emotionally and physically.” People were relaxed, comfortable and happy in the company of staff. People’s independence was considered important by all staff and their privacy and dignity was promoted.

Staff were committed to delivering care in a person-centred way based on people's preferences and wishes.

There was a stable staff team who were knowledgeable about the people they supported and had built

trusting and meaningful relationships with them. Activities met people’s preferences and interests. People were encouraged to go out and form relationships with family and members of the community. Staff knew people’s communication needs well and we observed them using a variety of tools, such as sign language, pictures and objects of reference, to gain their views.

People were involved in their care planning. End of life care planning and documentation guided staff in providing care at this important stage of people’s lives. End of life care was delivered empathetically and with respect and dignity.

People, their relatives and health care professionals had the opportunity to share their views about the service. Complaints made by people or their relatives were taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. The provider and registered manager were committed to continuously improve and had developed structures and plans to develop and consistently drive improvement within the service and maintain their care delivery to a good standard.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.