We carried out a review of the data available to us about 26 Brookside Avenue on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 26 Brookside Avenue, you can give feedback on this service.
26 Brookside Avenue provides accommodation for up to three people who require support with personal care. The service specializes in care for younger people with learning difficulties and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection two people were using the service. The registered manager told us that they do not intend to support three people in the future as the building is too small
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We identified a few concerns about the recording and storage of medicines. We were informed these would be resolved promptly. People and relatives felt the service was safe. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns if they had any.
We observed staff were well trained and also had sufficient care plan guidance in place to ensure that they were supporting people safely and effectively. The service was clean.
There were enough staff and staff were safely recruited. If needed, referrals were made to other professionals. Professional advice was documented and followed. Professionals had also provided some training for staff.
Staff had good knowledge of people’s needs. We observed positive caring interactions between people and staff. Relatives reported that the service was caring.
The service was small and followed the principles of ‘registering the right support’. Where the service was situated, allowed people access to the countryside and public transport if people wanted to visit other areas. We observed people were supported to engage in activities of their choosing and live independent lives.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Whilst neither of the people using the service were at the end of their life; the service had explored their wishes. This meant that in the event of a sudden death, their preferences would be followed.
There was a clear governance process to ensure that records were audited at the service. The provider oversaw the registered managers work to ensure that the management team was effective. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and felt the service was managed well.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 2 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service is registered to provide care for up to three people living with mental health needs or learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection two people were living at the service.
At our last inspection in April 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found that the service remained ‘Good’ for being safe, caring, responsive and well-led, however ‘Requires Improvement’ was identified for effective.
We found inconsistencies in how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was being applied. Where people lacked mental capacity to consent to specific decisions about their care and support, appropriate action in accordance with MCA had not always been taken. The registered manager was already aware of this shortfall. MCA training had already been planned for staff including the registered manager.
The storage and management of medicines were found to be correct but the administration of one particular medicine had not always been administered as required. The registered manager took immediate action to address this issue.
People’s needs had been assessed and care plans were in place to support staff of how to meet people’s needs. Information about one person’s particular health condition did not have a care plan or risk assessment completed. However, staff were able to tell us about this condition and how they supported the person. Some people had periods of high anxiety that affected their mood and behaviour. The strategies in place to guide staff of how to support people were found to lack specific detail and instruction. The registered manager took immediate action and addressed this concern.
Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.
People continued to receive safe care. They were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report any signs that people were abused or at risk of abuse. The provider had procedures in place for staff to report concerns and for those concerns to be investigated and acted upon.
Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were supported by staff that were caring and treated them with dignity and their privacy was respected. People’s independence was promoted within the service.
People were supported to live the life that they chose and care plans supported staff to provide a person centred approach.
People and their relatives felt they could raise a concern and the provider had systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.
The provider had arrangements in place for monitoring and assessing the quality of care people experienced. These included seeking and acting upon the views for people who used the service and others.
We carried out our inspection on 4 February 2015. The inspection was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because the service is small and the manager was often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure they would be in.
The service provides accommodation for up to three people who require nursing or personal care. The service specialises in care for younger people with learning difficulties and autistic spectrum disorder. It is located in a residential area in East Leake, a village near Loughborough in Leicestershire. At the time of our inspection one person was using the service.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff understood and put into practice the provider’s procedures for safeguarding people from abuse and avoidable harm. They advised people using the service about how to keep safe in the home and when they were out enjoying activities. People knew how to raise concerns. The provider had enough suitably skilled staff to be able to meet the needs of people using the service. Staff prompted people to take their own medicines and had effective procedures for reminding people to take their medicines when they were not at 26 Brookside Avenue.
People using the service were supported by staff who had received relevant and appropriate training. This meant staff understood the needs of people they supported. Staff were supported through effective supervision and training. Staff understood the relevance to their work of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They knew how to seek people’s consent before they provided care and support.
Staff supported people with their nutritional needs by providing information about balanced diets and healthy eating. They supported people to prepare their own meals. People were supported to access the relevant health services when they needed to.
People using the service told us that staff were considerate and caring. The provider had matched people’s needs with the skills and knowledge of care workers. That was particularly the case in terms of activities that people enjoyed. People were able to enjoy a variety of sports and recreation because care workers played an active participatory role in them. People were supported by care workers who understood their needs. People were involved in the assessments of their needs and in reviews of their plan of care. People were provided with information about their care and support options and were involved in decisions about their care and support. Care workers respected people’s privacy and dignity.
People’s plans of care were centred on their specific needs. Those plans had agreed aims and objectives which care workers helped people to achieve. People knew how to raise concerns if they needed to. The person we spoke with were very pleased with the care and support they had experienced.
The provider had aims and objectives that were understood by staff and the person using the service. They had effective procedures for monitoring and assessing the quality of service that promoted continuous improvement.
We found people were able to make informed decisions about their care and support. One relative told us that staff 'are always very careful to get [their family member's] consent' and 'always talk to [their family member] in a way that is appropriate.'
We found people experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We found people's care needs had been assessed. Care and support was delivered in a way that met people's needs and ensured their safety and welfare.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We found the provider had robust systems in place relating to the management of medicines.
Staff were supported in their work and were confident that they were able to provide the care required.
People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained. We found the provider had clear and effective systems in place relating to record keeping.
The person using the service told us they were happy living at the home. They told us that they had been in other homes prior to coming to this one and that they were happier now they lived here. They commented that: "It's alright living here. The staff are alright to me. They sort things out for me."
The staff we spoke with told us that they enjoyed working at the service and that they felt supported. One staff member said: "I feel very supported. It's the best place I've worked." Another commented that: "I really enjoy it here, it's everything that care should be. We encourage them to make better choices and live the life they choose."
A relative of someone living at the home said: "We are very happy with the service. He calls it home which shows he's happy there and that he wants to be there." They said they were in regular contact with the home.
We reviewed the care plans in place at the home which were detailed and informative. We reviewed incidents which had been recorded by the service and found some errors in relation to the administration of people's medication. We looked at medication as a result of our visit.