You are here

Avalon Court Care Centre Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

We inspected Avalon Court Care Home on 16 October 2017. The inspection visit was unannounced.

The home is registered to provide personal and nursing care for up to 101 people. There were 74 people living at the home when we inspected the service. The home changed to the current provider in December 2016 and this was the first inspection under the new provider. Care and support is provided over four floors and the home has a memory unit on the first floor that supports people living with dementia.

A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.

Prior to our inspection we had received information of concern relating to the length of time some people had to wait for care staff to attend to them, poor moving and handling techniques and the high level of agency staff used within the home. There were also concerns around the safe administration of medicines. We looked at these concerns as part of our inspection visit.

Staffing numbers were supported by the use of agency care staff. Some people told us they did not always feel confident in the care and support from agency staff who were unfamiliar with their needs. The provider tried to ensure continuity of care by using agency staff that had worked at the home before and robust efforts were being made to recruit new staff. At times some people had to wait for staff to support them with their care at times they preferred.

People were protected against the risk of abuse as the provider took appropriate steps to recruit suitable staff and staff knew how to protect people from harm. Safeguarding concerns were investigated and responded to.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place to protect people and risk assessments were followed to keep people safe. Care plans contained detail about people and how they liked to receive their care. Staff spoken with had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to access healthcare from a range of professionals inside and outside the home and received support with their nutritional needs. This assisted them to maintain their health and well-being.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Decisions were made in people’s ‘best interests’ where they could not make decisions for themselves.

Most care staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.

Most people knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and told us they would discuss concerns with staff directly involved in their care. Complaints received were investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. People who used the service, and their relatives, were given the opportunity to share their views about how the home was run.

Quality assurance procedures identified where the service needed to make improvements and where issues had been identified the registered manager took action to continuously improve the service.

People were encouraged to maintain their interests and hobbies and staff supported their personal preferences. People's care records were kept up to date to reflect the care and support they rece

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was not always safe.

Some people expressed concerns over the use of agency staff. This was because they did not always feel safe being supported by agency staff who were not always familiar with their support needs. Robust actions were being taken to address this. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people�s individual health and wellbeing were identified and care was planned to minimise the risks. The provider�s recruitment procedures reduced the risks of unsuitable staff being permanently employed. Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was effective.

Permanent staff completed induction and training so they had the skills they needed to effectively meet the needs of people at the home. Where people could not make decisions for themselves, people�s rights were protected. People received food and drink that met their preferences and supported them to maintain their health and well-being. People were supported to access healthcare professionals for additional support.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was caring.

People were happy with the care and support they received from most staff who were caring and thoughtful. Staff understood how to promote people�s rights to dignity and privacy at all times. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and make everyday choices which were respected by staff. People were able to maintain links with family and friends.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and

how they wanted to be supported. Care plans contained detailed information to inform staff how to support people�s needs and preferences. People knew how to make a complaint and the provider monitored complaints to identify any trends and patterns. There was a range of activities for people to be involved in.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was well-led.

Overall, people and relatives spoke positively about the management team. Staff were supported to carry out their roles by members of the management team who they considered approachable and responsive. The provider had effective systems to review the quality and safety of service provided and to make improvements where needed.