You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

This inspection took place on 6, 7 and 8 August 2018. Autumn Gardens 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.

Autumn Gardens is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to up to 85 older people, some of whom may have dementia. The home provides a service for people, primarily from the Greek community although they also work with people that speak English and other languages. The home is a purpose-built unit with two floors. There are three communal lounges on the ground floor and a large well-kept garden.

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.

The service has been subject to a period of increased monitoring and support by commissioners. The service has been the subject of multiple safeguarding investigations by the local authority and partner agencies. As a result of concerns raised, the provider is currently subject to a police investigation. We have reported further about this under the ‘well-led’ section of the report.

Risk assessments were not consistent. Some risk assessments provided staff with guidance on how to mitigate known risks whilst others did not. However, staff that we spoke with were aware of people’s risks and how to manage them.

People received their medicines safely and on time. Systems were in place to monitor medicines and staff had received training in medicines administration.

The home managed behaviour that challenges well and healthcare professionals were positive about how this was managed. Staff understood how to work effectively with people to manage their behaviour.

People had access to call bells if they required help and call bells were answered promptly.

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 supported this practice.

Staff had received training in infection control and were aware of how to control and prevent infection.

People received diets appropriate to their needs. Special diets were documented and staff were aware of people’s individual needs. Drinks were available throughout the day and night.

Staff received thorough induction when they started work at the home as well as regular, effective supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to access routine healthcare and referrals were made to specialist healthcare professionals when necessary.

Care plans were not always person centred. However, the home had recognised this and were in the process of updating all care plans.

There were systems in place to identify maintenance issues. Staff were aware of how to report and follow up maintenance.

We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Relatives were welcomed and able to visit whenever they wished.

The home understood the importance of activities and engaging people in things that were meaningful and important to them. There were regular scheduled activities in communal areas and for people who spent the majority of time in their rooms.

People were supported and encouraged to access the community and stay in contact with relatives and friends.

Staff were positive about the management and the support that they received.

There were regular surveys and bi-annual meetings with friends and family members to seek their opinion and share information.

Audits were carried out across the service on a regular basis that loo

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was not always safe. Risk assessments were inconsistent and did not always provide guidance for staff on how to minimise the known risk.

Staff understood safeguarding and how to report any concerns.

People’s care needs were assessed monthly and staffing levels reflected people’s care needs.

People were supported to have their medicines safely.

People were protected from the risk of infection and appropriate equipment was used.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was effective. Staff had on-going training to effectively carry out their role

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and how this impacted on the people that they worked with.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal.

Peoples healthcare needs were monitored and referrals to specialists made when necessary.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink so that their dietary needs were met. Where people had specialist dietary needs, these were understood and catered for.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was caring. People were supported and staff understood individual’s needs.

We observed that people were treated with respect and staff maintained privacy and dignity.

Staff treated people kindly and were patient and kind in their interactions.

People were supported in their preferred language.

Relatives were welcomed and able to visit at any time.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was responsive. Care plans were being updated to be more person centred.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual support needs, their interests and preferences.

The home provided a lot of activities and people were encouraged to take part. Activities were provided in English and Greek.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place. The home responded appropriately to any complaints.

End of life care was documented and regularly reviewed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was well-led. Staff were positive about how the home was run and understood lines of accountability.

The home had addressed recent safeguarding concerns in a transparent way.

There were regular audits that identified any actions required to improve the quality of care.

People’s and relatives feedback was actively sought through surveys and meetings.

Healthcare professionals and relatives were positive about communication within the home.

There were regular staff meetings.