Archived: Avon Court Care Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the care staff gave and from looking at records. If you would like to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service caring?

People and their relatives told us they liked the staff and had built good relationships with them. Staff spoke to people in a friendly, caring and respectful manner. There were many positive interactions between people who used the service and staff. Those people requiring assistance to eat were sensitively helped. People's privacy and dignity was maintained.

Is the service safe?

People felt safe within the home and said they would have no hesitation in raising a concern or a formal complaint if required.

People's relatives were happy with the care provided and had no concerns about their family member's wellbeing.

Regular audits were in place to ensure the safety of the environment and the use of equipment such as the hoist. Staff had received updated training to ensure their own safety and that of the people they supported.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. No applications had needed to be submitted from this home. Staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service responsive?

Staff were attentive to people's needs and responded to people in a timely manner. Staff involved people in interventions and responded appropriately to any challenges, such as agitation.

People were assessed in relation to their risk of malnutrition and dehydration. People had a plan of care to address any potential risks identified. People at particular risk were monitored and reviewed via the auditing processes in place.

People were encouraged to suggest foods they wanted to be included on the menu. People were offered a range food and drink in response to their needs and personal preferences.

Is the service effective?

People looked well cared for and said they were happy with the care they received. People had comprehensive care plans in place, which were regularly reviewed and updated. The documentation ensured staff had the correct information to meet people's needs effectively.

Staff felt well supported and received a range of training related to their role. Various training formats were arranged to meet the individual learning styles of staff. Staff had annual appraisals which enhanced their practice and the delivery of care.

Is the service well led?

The manager was experienced, person centred and approachable. They regularly toured the home and were positively supported by various heads of department and their teams of staff.

There were comprehensive systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. There were also a range of meetings to enable people who used the service, their relatives and staff to give their views. People felt listened to and were confident any issues would be positively addressed without delay.

Care plans showed that people's needs were assessed and reviewed but there was little meaningful evaluation to show how people's needs were met. Some of the most dependent people had not received prompt attention and support.

The provider sent us an action plan to show how they were going to improve in these areas. We returned to see whether these improvements had been made. We also looked at how the provider was working with other providers of care, and the standard of record keeping. We reviewed recruitment procedures to check whether they were effective.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For those people who lacked capacity there was evidence that decisions had been taken on their behalf in their best interests and in consultation with people who were close to them.

Care records were completed to a high standard and demonstrated that people received prompt and appropriate support. They also demonstrated that there was cooperation with other health and social care professionals involved in people's care. There were effective recruitment processes in place to ensure that people received care from suitable individuals.

We saw little documentary evidence that people were consulted about their care, although we observed staff taking time and care to allow people to make choices. We saw incorrect practice and documentation in relation to obtaining consent for the use of bedrails and there was limited understanding of responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act for those people who lacked capacity.

Care plans showed that people's needs were assessed and regularly reviewed but there was little meaningful evaluation to show how people's needs were met. Some of the most dependent and vulnerable people had not received prompt and appropriate support.

We found the home to be clean and staff followed appropriate procedures to prevent infection. Staffing levels were regularly reviewed, taking into account the occupancy level and the dependency of people, and feedback from staff, residents and relatives. Feedback from people mostly indicated that people were satisfied with staffing levels. There were effective systems in place to monitor quality and safety and to capture the views of the people who lived in the home.