You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The inspection took place on 14 October 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered in 2017. 7 Pizey Avenue is a 'care home' that provides respite, short stays and emergency placements. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. It is registered for up to four people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were three people staying in the home. The home was a two-storey detached property with an open plan kitchen dining area and lounge with access to a secure garden. There was also a single self-contained annex and enclosed garden. The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpinned the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values included choice, promotion of independence and inclusion.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected. There were enough staff to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

When people were at risk of seizures or behaviours which may challenge the service, staff understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm. The service was responsive when things went wrong and reviewed practices in a timely manner.

Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained staff. Where possible people had been involved in assessments of their care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. Their care was provided by staff who received an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their role effectively.

People's eating and drinking preferences were understood and their dietary needs were met. Opportunities to work in partnership with other organisations took place to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service. 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 and their families described the staff as caring, kind and friendly and the atmosphere of the home as relaxed and engaging. People were supported to express their views about their care using their preferred method of communication and were actively supported to have control of their day to day lives.

People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected. People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they were able to communicate their needs, their life histories and the people important to them. Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR) were promoted and understood by staff.

A complaints process was in place, people and families felt listened to and actions were taken if they raised concerns. The service had an open and positive culture. Leadership was visible and promoted good teamwork. Staff spoke highly about the management and had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Audits and quality assurance processes were effective in driving service improvements. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other se

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs and staff were recruited safely.

Medicines were managed safely and staff had received training in medicines administration.

Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and were able to describe how they would identify and raise potential abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had the training they needed to provide effective care and support to people using the service.

Staff understood people's nutritional care needs and made sure they received varied and nutritious meals in the service.

People received support with their health care needs from their GP, other NHS services and specialist learning disability services.

The service provided a good standard of accommodation with sufficient private and communal space for people to spend time on their own or with others.

Staff sought consent from people when they provided care and support. People were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring. They understood the care needs of people they supported and treated them with respect and compassion.

People's care records showed that care staff involved them in making decisions about their care and support.

Throughout the inspection we saw that care staff respected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care and support that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences.

People had the opportunity to engage in activities that were based on their interests and meaningful to them.

People's diverse needs were recognised and care plans offered guidance to staff about how best to support people.

Systems were in place to listen and respond to concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was well-led.

The service's quality monitoring processes provided an overview of the service and identified areas for improvement.

The service engaged positively with people and their relatives, providing information and listening to feedback.

Staff were positive about the culture at the service. Staff told us that they attended regular meetings with the manager and that they felt listened to.