Avebury House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their relatives had been involved in planning the support they needed. Plans set out people’s specific wishes, for example, the ways people liked to be supported, people’s preferences about activities they took part in and how their specific health and communication needs should be met.

Relatives told us they were happy with the service people received, which met their specific needs. Comments included, “[Person] has come from hospital. We are so glad [person] has been discharged to this home. The manager has introduced themselves and everyone knows [relative] already. It’s really re-assuring”.

Another relative told us “Even though hearing loss is an issue, staff ensure they offer a wide range of activities that [person] can participate in.” The person told us when they play games – for example cards and bingo with other peers, staff hold up boards so the person can read in order to be included.

The registered manager was passionate about activities and told us the service had begun a wish tree. This enabled people to identify experiences, activities and personal goals that were important to them. Staff used these wishes to create opportunities for people to fulfil aspirations, maintain interests and try new experiences, demonstrating a commitment to delivering personalised care and enhancing quality of life. We saw that one person had gone for a drive out in a convertible sports car while another person was supported to go to the seaside.

Staff said the service was focused on meeting people’s specific needs, to help them develop skills and have a good quality of life. This approach was reflected in the records of support provided.

However, despite shortfalls in leaders knowledge, most people received person centred care which focused on taking part in activities that were meaningful to them.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider worked in partnership with other agencies, to ensure people received continuity of care. Details of this support was recorded in people’s care records. Relatives told us they worked well with the provider and specialist health services to ensure continuity of care for people. Feedback from professionals was that care was consistent and supportive.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate or up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication plans were in place for people. However, these plans did not consistently provide person-centred guidance on how individuals communicated their needs, wishes and preferences. This was particularly evident for some people with a learning disability who did not communicate verbally where records lacked sufficient detail about their preferred methods of communication and how staff should recognise and respond to their communication cues.

Documents had been provided in more accessible formats for people, including the use of large print, photographs, pictures and reduced verbal communication. A relative commented, “[Person] has dementia and so can get confused easily. Every time I have visited, I have witnessed staff using reduced words so they can get across key information and choices to [person].”

During the inspection we observed staff using people’s specific communication methods to support them with their care. People we spoke to all told us how they would make a complaint. We saw a resident’s handbook which had information for all residents. A copy of this was given to people when they moved into the service.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints procedure, and accessible versions had been developed for people. There were systems to track all concerns and complaints that had been raised to ensure these had been followed up and action taken. During the assessment, we noticed some parts of the tracker had not been filled out properly with end dates of concerns. We fed this back to the provider who took immediate action to ensure this was rectified.

Relatives told us staff listened to them and took action to resolve any issues, with comments including “The staff always listen to us and will act upon any requests or concerns we have, which gives us a lot of confidence in them” and “When [relative] arrived here we told leaders about the previous issues we had with other placements. The registered manager listened to us and involved us with how the care home would support [relative]. They have delivered on that.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Assessments included the support people required to access the care they needed, including any specific equipment or adaptations.

The assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. The provider had made adaptations to the building, including signage for people, a cinema room and vintage popcorn maker. Couples were able to share a bedroom if required.

Staff and leaders did not always listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and did not always tailor their care support and treatment in response to this.

Leaders and staff were not aware of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture which meant outcomes for people with a learning disability or autistic people were not consistently considered through the lens of equity in experiences. As a result, the provider could not demonstrate how the service was actively supporting people with a learning disability to achieve their goals, or experience the same opportunities and quality of life as other residents of the care home. We raised this with leaders during our assessment

People’s needs were reviewed regularly to ensure they were being supported in the least restrictive way possible which still met their needs. People were supported to access local community services and healthcare by staff when needed. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and had a good understanding of the discrimination people may experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service was providing end-of-life care to one person. Relatives were complimentary of the service and staff, and spoke about how the provider was providing compassionate and dignified end of life care.

The manager had started discussions with people and their relatives to ensure any specific wishes about end-of-life care for people were talked about and recorded in care plans.