You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 8 April 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Glamis Avenue is a residential care home for up to two people who are recovering from brain injury. The service focuses on rehabilitation and promoting people’s independence, so they are able to move on to more independent living. There were two people staying at the service at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

One person spoke very highly of the service. The service had strong person-centred values and staff placed people at the heart of everything.

There was a stable core staff team that people knew well. There were positive outcomes and strong relationships between people and staff. People were very relaxed and happy in the company of staff and the registered manager.

Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were assessed. Risk management plans were put in place to make sure risks were reduced as much as possible whilst still promoting their independence.

People could make choices and staff were aware of the legislation to protect people’s rights in making decisions.

Staff supported people by treating them with respect and dignity. People participated in rehabilitation, vocational and leisure activities and staff encouraged people independence so they were able to plan to move on to more independent living.

There was clear leadership at the service and one person and staff spoke highly of the registered manager. There was a positive culture at the service where staff felt listened to and supported.

The registered manager and team leader had quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good. (Report published 6 October 2015)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection following a period when the home was unoccupied whilst it was refurbished. The service remains good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Inspection carried out on 22 July 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was announced and took place on 22 and 27 July 2015. We told the registered manager one day before our visit that we would be inspecting this service. This was to make sure staff and people we needed to speak with were available.

Glamis Avenue provides accommodation and personal care for up to two people who are recovering from brain injury.

There was 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.

Both people living at the home felt safe and well-supported.

Steps had been taken to assess risks to people, both in terms of the physical environment and also in supporting people as safely as possible in meeting their identified goals.

Staff had been trained in in safeguarding adults and were aware of the types of abuse and how to make safeguarding referrals.

Plans were in place on how to support people in the event of an emergency.

There were robust recruitment procedures being followed to make sure that appropriate staff were employed to support people.

Staff and people felt the staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were planned and adjusted to make sure people were supported to meet their rehabilitation goals.

People were supported with medicines with the aim of people managing their medication on their own.

Staff knew people’s needs well and the organisation had a training programme in place. This ensured that staff had thorough induction and opportunity to develop their skills and knowledge.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people’s consent underpinned how staff worked with people in meeting identified goals.

At the time of the inspection the people who lived at the home had full capacity to be involved in all decision making about their goals, care and support.

Systems were in place to support people with budgeting, shopping and cooking.

People felt the staff were very caring and supportive.

People’s needs had been fully assessed and interventions and goals set with people. These were detailed in care plans that were up to date with evidence of regular reviews. Care plans were person centred focussing on their goals for rehabilitation.

People were supported with leisure and recreational goals as well as domestic routines so that they could fill their time meaningfully as well as working to rehabilitation goals.

There was a system in place for managing complaints that people were aware of. No complaints had been made about the service since the last inspection.

The service was well-led with an open culture and a continuous drive for improvement.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people.

Inspection carried out on 21 May 2013

During a routine inspection

At this inspection we spoke with both of the people who were living at the home. We were assisted by the registered manager, the rehabilitation lead person, team leader and one of the care workers.

We found that people were treated with respect and dignity and had been fully involved in their care.

Both people living at the home had been assessed as having full capacity to consent to their treatment and we found that they had been fully informed about treatment options.

People living at the home had complex needs involving various specialist health professionals from different disciplines. People�s needs had been fully assessed and care plans put in place so that there clear objectives that people were working towards. We saw there was good risk management that demonstrated people were able to take on responsibilities as part of their rehabilitation.

The organisation had taken appropriate steps to protect people from the risk of abuse through staff training. There was also information and procedures relating to abuse and the protection of vulnerable adults available to the staff.

The home had sufficient staff to meet the needs of people accommodated. Staffing levels were flexible to meet people�s changing needs.