You are here

Archived: Care Avenues Limited Requires improvement

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 August 2017

Care Avenues Limited is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, the agency was supporting 16 people with varying levels of support.

Our inspection took place on 5 May 2017 and was announced. The service had a registered manager 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 were supported by staff who were able to identify risks and where possible reduce or remove them. However, some risks had been identified but there was no guidance for staff to follow to enable them to manage the risks safely. This placed people at risk of potential harm.

Staff were confident that they could recognise and report poor practice or concerns about people's safety. Current management arrangements meant that allegations were reported and managed appropriately.

People were supported by sufficient staff to meet their needs safely and effectively and in a timely manner. However, additional staffing resources were required to ensure support remained consistent at weekends and when regular staff were away from work. Staff were currently recruited safely meaning that only people suitable to work in the role were appointed.

People received their medicines safely and there were safe systems for administering, storing, recording and auditing medicines.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs effectively. Staff had access to a variety of training but identified that more ‘specialist’ training opportunities would enable them to better understand the needs of the people they supported. Training opportunities were being improved and most staff felt well supported to do their jobs effectively.

People's rights may not be protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Most people who used the service had capacity to make their own decisions and choices. However, when it was considered that a person did not have capacity the agency was not managing this process effectively. Assessments were inappropriate and unclear leading to staff confusion as to who could make decisions and who required support. Where people were able, they were involved and supported by staff to make decisions that affected them.

People's nutritional needs were met and people were satisfied with the support they received at meal times. People shared their individual needs and preferences with staff so they could meet them effectively.

Staff worked with families to ensure that the guidance of healthcare professionals was followed when required to ensure people's good health and wellbeing. Effective information sharing meant that people’s health care needs could be effectively managed.

People were supported by staff who were caring and kind. People got to know the staff who supported them and all said that staff supported them in ways that they preferred. People told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect at all times. Staff understood the importance of this to ensure people felt confident and reassured. People's independence was promoted and they felt listened to and involved.

People told us they were able to raise concerns and felt confident these would be acted on by senior staff. The provider had a complaints procedure that people had been confident to use. Feedback suggested that when concerns had been raised they had been responded to appropriately and to people’s satisfaction.

Processes to audit the service were now in place and proving effective although prior to the recent management changes processes were either not being followed or had not identified issues. Quality was monitored and information shared with staff who felt involv

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was not fully safe.

Risks were not always being safely managed meaning that people may be at risk of harm.

People were not always confident that staff would be available to support them.

People were protected because staff knew how to protect them from the risk of harm and potential abuse.

People were currently supported by staff who had undergone pre-employment checks to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People were supported by staff to take their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was not always effective.

People's rights may not be protected because the provider was not appropriately assessing people's capacity to make decisions.

People were cared for and supported by staff who, overall had the skills and knowledge to support them effectively.

People's individual dietary needs and preferences were met.

People's good health was promoted because staff worked with families to ensure guidance and advice from healthcare professionals was followed.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was caring

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring.

People were listened to and their independence was encouraged.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was not always responsive

Staff were not always aware or mindful of people's needs arising from their personal identity

People were supported by staff who were responsive to their changing needs.

People were confident that their complaints would be listened to, taken seriously and acted on.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was not always well-led.

People were feeling positive that current managers were listening to them and addressing shortfalls.

Staff were now feeling more involved and supported to enable them to carry out their jobs effectively.

There were procedures in place to monitor and review the quality of the service. These were identifying where improvements were required.