You are here

Archived: Park Avenue Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The inspection took place on 25 April 2017 and was unannounced. Park Avenue Residential Home provides residential care without nursing for up to 25 younger people with a primary mental health diagnosis. The service is comprised of two Victorian houses number 74 and number 76; one accommodates women and the other men. The two houses are not joined but have communal access to gardens and a shared parking area at the rear of the properties. At the time of the inspection there were 19 people living there.

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.

Staff had undergone safeguarding training and had access to policies and guidance to enable them to safeguard people from abuse.

People had detailed and comprehensive risk assessments in place which were actively reviewed with them to ensure they remained up to date and relevant. Staff understood how to respond to emergencies when they arose. The provider had ensured that the premises and service were secure and safe for people.

A higher level of staffing had been maintained for the number of people accommodated to allow for the induction of new staff. People were safe as they were cared for by staff whose suitability for their role had been assessed by the provider.

People received their medicines safely from trained staff, who were provided with relevant guidance about the administration of people’s medicines. There were processes in place to ensure the safe ordering, storage and disposal of medicines.

Staff received a comprehensive induction to their role. People were supported by staff who were offered a broad range of training opportunities relevant to their role to ensure they could support people effectively. Staff were well supported within their role through the supervision process.

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 systems in the service supported this practice.

People were involved in the meal planning within the service and had a choice of hot meal. People were encouraged to eat a balanced diet and healthy eating was promoted. People were encouraged where possible to be independent in the kitchen.

Staff spoken with were knowledgeable about people’s health care needs and people’s care records contained any relevant guidance required by staff to ensure their health care needs could be met effectively.

People experienced positive relationships with the staff who provided their care. People seemed very relaxed with the staff and clearly enjoyed their company. Staff demonstrated concern for people’s welfare. Staff supported people appropriately to make their own decisions.

Staff were observed to be respectful of people’s wishes. Staff were careful not to speak with other staff about issues in front of people. People were provided with information about their rights within the service. People’s needs in relation to their privacy and dignity had been met.

People were provided with a comprehensive pre-assessment prior to their admission to the service. People had support plans in place that had been discussed and agreed with them in order to identify what their care needs were and how they wanted them to be met; these were reviewed with them at least monthly. Staff had access to clear and individualised guidance in relation to meeting each person’s mental health needs.

People’s needs for stimulation were met in varied ways that responded to their individual interests and preferences. People were able to access a range of activities both on-site and in the community. People were encouraged to retain or develop their levels of i

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was safe.

People had been safeguarded from the risk of abuse.

Risks to people had been assessed and managed for their safety.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s’ needs. Staff’s suitability for their role had been assessed to ensure people’s safety.

People’s medicines were managed safely by trained and competent staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their roles effectively for people.

People’s treatment was provided in accordance with legislation and guidance, where they lacked the capacity to consent to specific decisions about their care.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient for their needs and to maintain a balanced diet.

Staff supported people to ensure their mental and physical health care needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was caring.

People experienced positive relationships with the staff who provided their care.

Staff supported people appropriately to make their own decisions.

People’s rights to privacy and dignity within the service were respected and upheld.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. People were fully involved in drawing up their support plans which reflected their needs, preferences and interests.

People’s needs for stimulation were met in varied ways that were responsive to their individual interests and preferences.

Processes were in place to enable people to express their concerns, and complaints and these had were investigated and responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was well-led.

The provision of people’s care was underpinned by a clear set of values which staff applied in their work with people. There was an open and transparent culture within the service.

There was a clearly defined management structure for the service which was well-led by the registered manager.

Processes were in place to audit and monitor the quality of the service provided and to drive service improvement for people.