You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

This inspection took place on 13 and 16 June 2017 and was announced. We had given the service 48 hours’ notice that we would be inspecting in order that arrangements could be made for us to visit people in their own homes with their permission.

Avenues East provides personal care to people in supported living settings and in their own homes through a domiciliary service. There were 50 people using the service at the time of our inspection. Some people using the service had an acquired brain injury.

This is the first inspection of this service under our inspection system.

People who used the service had access to a case manager responsible for assessing their needs on an on-going basis to promote their recovery, independence and maintenance of their well-being. The service is based around each person’s individual needs and is therefore not time limited.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

People felt safe using the service and were empowered and enabled to take responsibility for their own safety. There were systems and processes in place to minimise the risk of abuse and staff understood their role in safeguarding people from harm. There was a culture of transparency and staff were given training in how to whistle blow on poor practice.

Risks associated with people’s care and support were managed safely whilst promoting independence. There were effective, organised systems in place for the safe handling of medicines. Assessments were in place to support people administer or increase their independence to self-administer their medicines.

People were supported by a team of staff who were skilled and experienced in the assessment of and meeting people's individual needs. Staff were provided with supervision, appraisals and on-going training.

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 procedures of the service and used the by staff supported this practice.

The staff supported people to make decisions and choices in their lives having ensured capacity assessments had been completed. People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to choose and prepare their meals and staff ensured that people had enough to eat and drink.

The service had a person centred culture focussed on the promotion of people's rights to make choices and live a fulfilled life as independently as possible. People received a personalised service which took into account their diverse needs and emphasised their recovery, rehabilitation and or on-going support. Support plans were personalised and centred on people’s preferences, views and experiences as well as their support needs.

People were supported by caring staff that knew them well and understood how to support them to maximise their potential and attain their goals. People's progress was monitored and celebrated.

Staff had supported people using the service to develop hobbies and interests in gardening and fundraising for a charity of their choice. People had also linked with a local school to share a sports day together and raise their profile of the service in the local community.

The service assessed and supported people whose needs were complex. The support was planned in a proactive way with people’s involvement. People were listened to and there were systems in place to obtain people's views about their care. People were encouraged to provide feedback on the service and felt they could raise concerns. Complaints were taken seriousl

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected as far as reasonably possible by staff who had received training to recognise abuse and how to report the matter.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep them as safe as possible.

There were appropriate systems in place for handling and administering medicines.

There were robust recruitment practices in place to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was effective.

The induction for new staff was robust and all staff received regular and effective supervision and support.

People’s rights were protected. Staff and management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest meetings.

People were supported to maintain good health and an appropriate diet for their needs.

The service worked with other professionals to support people to meet their needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was caring.

The service staff listened to people and supported them to be as fully as involved as possible with writing and review their support plans.

People were supported to express their views.

Staff treated people with understanding and respected people’s privacy and dignity

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Emphasis was placed upon quality support through the appointment of a case manager and using a person-centred support plan.

There was an assessment process in place so that people received personalised support.

Staff knew people well because they were organised to work with a small number of people using the service.

Any issues, complaints or ideas for improvement were listened to and addressed promptly.

The service had supported people to engage with their local community.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 September 2017

The service was well led.

The manager set the example of how the staff were to perform and was approachable to people using the service and staff.

The service had clear values which were put into practice by organised and caring staff.

There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.