Archived: 35 Avenue Road

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what staff told us. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.

We found the provider met the requirements of the law in relation to gaining people's consent to their care and support. This meant people's rights were protected.

Staff knew about risk management plans and we saw people were supported in line with those plans. This meant people were cared for in a way that protected them from harm.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were not protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

The provider had appropriate recruitment procedures in place to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

Systems were in place to make sure the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People's care needs were assessed with them. We saw evidence that people were involved in their care planning and reviews by using communication methods that met their needs. We saw care plans were regularly updated.

We found that one person who used the service had developed their independent living skills sufficiently to enable them to receive less support.

We found that incidents in the home had been reduced by the effective use of research based approaches to people's behaviour.

People in wheelchairs were not able to access the same opportunities for developing independent living skills due to the design of the building.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and caring staff. We saw staff were patient and encouraged people to be independent.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People's behaviour was managed in a calm and dignified way.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to plan and engage in a range of different activities each day.

People were asked their views about the service using appropriate communication methods and the provider acted on comments that people made.

Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this. We found staff discussed people's care needs with them on a regular basis.

Is the service well led?

The provider had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. We found the registered manager checked that risks were managed effectively.

The provider sought the views of people who used the service. Records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were identified by the registered manager.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure people received a good quality of care. Staff told us the service was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

The provider had not responded appropriately to requests by the registered manager and relatives for repairs to the property or replacements of damaged furniture.

We spoke with new manager of the home, who had been in post for one week. We spoke with the area manager who was supporting the new manager and two other staff members. We spoke with three people who used the service.

During our visit we saw how people participated in the service they received. We found that people were able to speak with staff and completed regular surveys to give feedback. They also participated in their care reviews where possible.

We found that people's care and welfare needs were being met by the home.

We saw that measures were in place to ensure people's safety in the home. We found that all staff had completed vulnerable adults training and understood how to report safeguarding concerns.

We found the staff team had regular supervision and training.

We found the provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

One person who used the service told us: 'I like the staff and my key worker'.

Another person told us: 'I like living here. I go swimming and to the cinema'.

We found that 35 Avenue Road was compliant in all five outcomes that we inspected.