Avondale Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns, people felt confident they would be treated with compassion and understanding.

Staff told us they were updated about incidents and changes. Incidents and accidents were discussed in handovers, meetings and group supervisions to share learning. One staff member told us, “We all get good support here and get regular updates and learning so we are kept up to date.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored.

The provider worked with various professionals to ensure continuity of care. The provider made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals and ensured people received regular visits from the GP.

Staff knew people and their risks well and told us how they worked with professionals to keep people safe. One person commented, “Yes, I am confident that I could access the GP, 1 visited yesterday from the practice and helped me with my [condition].”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider reported concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and were happy with their care. We were told, “[Person] is safe because the environment is safe.”

We spoke with staff about working with vulnerable people. Their comments included, “If I had concerns about a person’s physical or emotional wellbeing, I would raise this with my line manager. We also track the attendance at activities and so if someone’s suddenly appears disinterested in activities this would raise my concern” and “In safeguarding training I learnt about different types of abuse and how to recognise signs. I also learnt the danger of negligence and how as staff we can alleviate this. If I had any concern at all I would speak to my team lead as a priority and escalate if needed if I felt they were not listening.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In[care homes/hospitals], thiscan be donethrough a procedurecalled the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS),whichispart of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA).We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCAand how they managed DoLS within the service. DoLS applications and decisions had been managed appropriately.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

A risk management system was in place, and risk assessments were held in care plans. These provided staff with guidance on how to manage risk. For example, 1 person used paraffin-based cream. A risk assessment was in place to protect the person from the risk of fire associated with the cream. Measures to mitigate the risk included avoiding any flames, washing clothes and bedding regularly and being aware of fire hazard. Staff we spoke with were aware of this guidance.

Where appropriate, mental capacity assessments were in place to safeguard people’s rights in relation to decisions about any risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The home had fire safety equipment and staff had completed the relevant fire training.

The home was clean and free from malodours and designed to be dementia friendly. The windows all had window restrictors in place. People’s rooms were identified with clear door numbers, memory boxes and the person’s names, handrails contrasted with wall colourings and lighting was not too bright. This helped people to navigate around the home. Corridors displayed pictures and posters which helped to create a calm and relaxing atmosphere.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider had robust recruitment systems in place to ensure people were supported by well trained, experienced staff. Background checks were conducted to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

People told us there were enough staff. One person said, “I think there are enough [staff] just, and the nurses are very good.” A relative commented, “They [staff] are sufficient in number and they are lovely.”

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff responded to people promptly and had time to interact with people whilst supporting them.

One staff member told us, “I received enough detailed training that made me confident to do my job. Sometimes it feels like we are short on staffing. Especially during the mornings when we are busy with personal care. We are trying to give good personal care to each person individually though then might have to go and respond to a call bell which disrupts things.” Another said, “We have enough staff, certainly, though it can get busy at times but we get by.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) during personal care. Staff understood the need to wear PPE and how to manage the risk of infection. Infection control policies were in place and up to date.

Cleaning schedules were in place, and people’s rooms were maintained to a high standard. Toilets and bathrooms were clean and regularly checked.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicine as prescribed. Staff were trained to administer medicines, and their competency was regularly checked. One staff member told us, “I administer medicine, I am trained to do so, and I am checked regularly so I am safe.”

People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by the GP. Where people had ‘as required’ [PRN] medicines, protocols were in place. Medicines were stored securely and managed appropriately.

The provider completed regular audits to monitor medicines. Medicine records were accurate and up to date. Stock balances were correct, and medicine errors were reported and investigated thoroughly.