Archived: 38a Woolifers Avenue

The service had a registered manager. 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.

At the last inspection the service was rated as Good. At this inspection the service remained Good.

The service was safe. Staff showed a good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect people. People were kept safe and risk assessments had been completed to show how people were supported with every day risks. The service had a recruitment process in place which required certain checks to be carried out before staff started work, which helped to ensure that they were suitable to work in a care setting. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People’s medication was well managed and people received their medication as prescribed.

The service was effective. Staff had been offered training to help ensure they had the skills and knowledge required for their role as a care worker. They also received regular support and felt well supported by the management team. People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. People were supported to maintain good healthcare and had access to a range of healthcare services. The service kept clear records about all healthcare visits.

The service was caring. People had agreed to their care and had been asked how they would like this to be provided. They were treated with dignity and respect and staff provided care in a kind, caring and sensitive manner. Meetings had been held for the people living at the service, relatives and for the staff. Where possible people’s views and opinions had been sought and the service had listened and made the appropriate improvements.

The service was responsive. Detailed assessments had been carried out and care plans were developed around people’s needs and preferences. The service had a clear complaints procedure in place which was clearly displayed. This provided information on the process and the timespan for response.

The service was well-led. Staff, relatives, healthcare professionals and those living at the service spoke positively about the registered manager and felt the service was well managed. There were systems in place to regularly assess the service and ensure it was providing a quality service and keeping people safe.

We looked at both people's care records. On the day of our inspection visit we spoke with the manager and one care worker to obtain their views about the service. A further two care workers were also interviewed on a second visit to the service. Feedback from 'resident' meetings and satisfaction questionnaires about the quality of the service provided were also viewed during our visit.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service the senior staff member on duty asked to see our identification and asked us to sign in the visitor's book. Appropriate actions were taken by the care workers to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

We saw that the care workers had been provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that staff had been provided with the information they needed which would help to ensure that people were safeguarded.

Records viewed showed that the health and safety of the premises were regularly checked. This included regular fire safety checks which meant people were protected in the event of a fire.

On the day of our visit the service had one care worker on duty and the manager. We saw this was sufficient to meet the needs of the people who lived at the service. Care workers were seen to be available when help was needed and they also showed a good understanding of the communication methods used by the people who lived there.

Is the service effective?

People's care records showed that care and treatment had been planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records had been regularly reviewed and updated and care staff had been provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

Is the service caring?

We saw that the care workers interacted with people who lived at Woolifers Avenue in in a caring, respectful and professional manner. We observed that care workers treated people with respect and encouraged them to be involved in decisions about their care. Both people had lived at the service for a number of years and the care workers had a good understanding of their care needs and how they wished to be supported.

People using the service and their relatives had the opportunity to complete satisfaction questionnaires. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

People using the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. People's choices were taken in to account and listened to.

Care records showed that where concerns about people's wellbeing had been identified the care workers had taken appropriate action to ensure that they were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from health care professionals.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received the care they needed. There were clear lines of accountability and systems in place for people to raise any concerns they may have.

The service had quality assurance systems in place and records seen by us showed that any identified shortfalls had been addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

We saw that staff were aware of people's needs. Records were generally accurate and were kept securely.

Staff were subject to appropriate checks throughout the recruitment process. There were no new staff nor had there been for a while so it was not possible to check whether staff shadowed experienced staff prior to staff working alone. We were told that if there were new staff they would be required to shadow members of staff for three to four days.

One person we spoke to told us that they liked it at 38a Woolifers Avenue and that the staff were nice and they felt safe there.

We saw from surveys and minutes of the provider's meetings with people that people were generally satisfied with the service provided. Staff interactions with people were good and people were seen to be comfortable and well cared for.

We saw that some improvements were required with the recording, monitoring and security of people's care records.