Archived: Avalon Court Residential Home

Updated 24 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 26 January 2021 and was announced.

Updated 24 March 2021

Avalon Court Residential Home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 16 older people. At this inspection there were 16 people living at the home. One person had recently moved into the home. The home has a number of people who wish to live a more independent lifestyle within the safety and security of the care home. The provider offers respite (short stay) care.

The home is an older building; it has two floors with communal spaces such as lounges and a dining room on the ground floor. There is a small paved area to the side of the home with a covered area for people who enjoy fresh air. People were able to freely move between the building and the patio area. At this inspection everyone had their own individual bedroom. People were able to personalise their bedrooms.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

The home continued to ensure people were safe. There were enough suitable staff to meet people’s needs and to spend some time socialising with them. Further recruitment was ongoing for care staff and an activities coordinator. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. The provider, registered manager and staff continued to encourage people to remain independent. People received their medicines safely and, where possible, were supported to administer their own medicines. People were protected from abuse because staff understood how to keep them safe and informed us concerns would be followed up if they were raised.

People continued to receive mainly effective care. However, we made a recommendation in relation to ensuring legislation is followed relating to applications for the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is a framework to assess the requirement to lawfully deprive a person of their liberty when they lack the mental capacity to consent to treatment or care and need protecting from avoidable harm. Improvements were being made throughout the inspection to ensure people who lacked capacity were having decisions made in line with current legislation. Staff received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. People told us and we saw their healthcare needs were met. People received support to eat and drink sufficient amounts.

The home continued to provide a caring service to people. People and their relatives told us, and we observed that staff were kind and patient. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and their cultural or religious needs were valued. People were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. People’s choices were always respected and staff encouraged choice for those who struggled to communicate with them. When people were unable to visit people staff supported them to remain in touch using other methods.

The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. There were some activities to provide a range of opportunities and care staff helped whilst the activities coordinator was being replaced. These considered people’s hobbies and interests and reflected people’s preferences. People knew how to complain and there were always opportunities for them to discuss concerns with the registered manager and provider.

The service continued to be well led. People, relatives and staff spoke highly about the registered manager. The registered manager and provider continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements in accordance with people’s changing needs. When concerns were raised during the inspection the management were proactive in responding to them. The registered manager was continually trying to improve their own knowledge so they could effectively support staff.

We have made a recommendation about DoLS.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.