Availl (Norwich)

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed thoroughly before care began. Assessments included detailed information about health conditions, communication needs, mobility, nutrition, continence, personal preferences and emotional wellbeing. For example, assessments for people with complex needs such as PEG feeding or swallowing difficulties included clear clinical information and instructions from health professionals.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed clear routines for skin care, nutrition, catheter management and infection control. Risk assessments were structured and aligned with sector‑recognised tools, such as those for pressure damage, falls and choking risks.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked well together and communicated effectively to ensure people received coordinated care. Records showed regular updates, reviews and communication between carers, office staff and external professionals such as district nurses and GPs.

People told us staff were consistent and familiar to them, which helped maintain continuity. The provider used an electronic system to support communication, rota management and daily notes, and staff said they found the app helpful and reliable.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were prompted to make healthy choices where appropriate, such as hydration reminders, safe nutrition practices and skin‑care routines. Staff monitored health conditions such as catheter care, diabetes risk, skin breakdown and medication side effects, escalating concerns when needed.

People with communication barriers were supported sensitively, with staff using familiar cues and working closely with relatives to understand health needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider monitored outcomes through regular reviews, audits, daily notes and care plan updates. There was strong evidence of monitoring in areas such as medication administration, PEG feeding, falls risk, skin integrity and nutrition.

People’s outcomes were clearly recorded with clear evidence of progress, changes in need and the actions taken in response. Reviews were completed quarterly or more frequently if people’s needs changed.

The provider did tell people about their rights around consent and respect their rights when delivering care and treatment, however, best‑interest decisions were not always clearly recorded where someone lacked capacity and did not have an appointed decision‑maker.

Overall, staff respected people’s rights, sought consent appropriately and supported decision‑making in line with legislation, However, where people could not sign their care plans, this was recorded, though best interest decision making was not always fully documented. Recording these decisions more clearly would strengthen compliance with the Mental Capacity Act.