You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 August 2018

This inspection took place on 5 and 6 July 2018 and was unannounced. Avonmere Care Home is a ‘care home’, registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 76 people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Avonmere Care Home is a purpose-built home, designed to a very high specification both inside and outside. The home has four suites but only three were being used. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people living in the home. The memory care suites are on the first floor and there were passenger lifts to assist those with compromised mobility. Each of the suites have their own assisted bathrooms, sitting areas and dining rooms. All bedrooms were for single occupancy each with their own en-suite shower, toilet and wash hand basin facilities.

The service was first registered in August 2017, therefore this is their first inspection. There was a manager in post at the time of this inspection, their application to be the registered manager had already been submitted to CQC and their interview was booked for 24 July 2018. On 3 August 2018 this application had been approved. 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.

We found that all staff knew what to do if there were concerns about a person’s welfare, had received safeguarding vulnerable adult training and would report their concerns to the management team. Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Any risks to people’s health and welfare were identified and management plans put in place to reduce or eliminate the risk. Medicines were managed safely. The premises were well maintained with regular maintenance checks being completed. Checks were also made of the fire safety systems, the hot and cold-water temperatures and any equipment to make sure it was safe for staff and people to use. The premises were kept clean and tidy

People were looked after by sufficient numbers of care staff. The care team was supported by housekeeping, catering, activity and well-being staff. Staffing levels were adjusted as and when necessary. This could be because of new admissions to the home, a person being unwell and needing more support or because of activities planned to take place. People were safe because the staffing levels were sufficient.

People received an effective service. All staff were well-trained, supported and supervised. There was an induction training programme for new staff and a mandatory training programme all staff had to complete to remain competent in their role. This ensured the staff team had the necessary skills and knowledge to care for people correctly. Care staff were encouraged to complete nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care.

People’s capacity to make decisions was part of the care planning process. People were always asked to consent before receiving care. They were encouraged to make their own choices about aspects of their daily life. We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were provided with sufficient food and drink. They were offered meals and drinks that took account of their likes, dislikes and any specific dietary needs. Where people were at risk of losing weight, their body weight was monitored and provided with supplement drinks or fortified foods. Arrangements were made for people to see their GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to.

P

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 August 2018

The service is safe.

People were safe because staff had received safeguarding training. Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured only suitable staff were employed.

Any risks to people’s health and welfare were well managed and the premises were well maintained, clean, tidy and safe. People’s medicines were managed safely.

There were sufficient staff on duty at all times to ensure people’s needs were met and they were safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received the necessary training, supervision and support to be able to carry out their roles effectively.

People were provided with sufficient food and drink. They could make choices about what they ate and drank. They were assisted to see their GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to.

The service was aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and worked in accordance with this. People were asked to consent before staff helped them with tasks.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported and looked after by staff who were kind and caring and treated them with respect and dignity.

People were encouraged to express their views and to be actively involved in making about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People were provided with care and support that took account of their own specific needs. They were actively encouraged to being involved in making decisions about their care and their day to day life.

People felt that any concerns or complaints they had, would be listened to and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 August 2018

The service is well led.

There was a good management structure in place to provide the staff team with good support and leadership.

There was a programme of checks and audits in place to ensure that the quality of the service was measured. Any events such as complaints, accidents, incidents or safeguarding issues were analysed to see if there were lessons to be learnt.