Archived: Avoca

Updated 13 September 2016

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on the 11 August 2016 and was announced. This meant that we had given the provider 48 hours that we would be coming, as the service is a small supported living service for adults who may often be out during the day. We wanted to be sure there would be someone there.

The inspection was undertaken by an adult social care inspector.

Before we carried out the inspection we looked at information that we held about the service including the provider information return (PIR). This is a form in which we ask the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We talked with the two support workers on shift in detail. We also talked to the manager. We spoke with one person living at Avoca who wanted to speak to us, and we spoke with one family of another person who lived at the service who was visiting at the time of our inspection. The third person who lived at the property was not in during the inspection.

We observed care and support in communal areas and viewed the care files for the three people living at Avoca. We also looked at all of the staff training and recruitment files and other records relating to how the service was managed.

Updated 13 September 2016

This inspection took place on 11 August 2016 and was announced. This meant that the provider knew we would be coming. Due to the service being small, we wanted to be sure that someone would be in.

Avoca is a two story supported living service for four adults who have learning disabilities and mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the service. Potensial Ltd provide community based domiciliary care and supported living services to the people living at Avoca. Each person who lives at Avoca has their own tenancy agreement with a housing provider. The service aims to support people to live as independently as possible.

A registered manager was not in place. The area manager was in the process of registering. 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.

People felt safe and staff knew what actions to take if they thought that anyone had been harmed in any way. A Relative told us they were happy with the care their family member was receiving at the service.

People received their medicines as prescribed and safe practices had been followed in the administration and recording of medicines.

A relative and people we spoke with confirmed that there were enough staff available to meet the needs of the people living at Avoca.

Safety checks had been undertaken on the building such as the gas, electric and PAT (portable appliance) testing.

Staff were supervised regularly and had an annual appraisal. Staff training was in date and covered a wide range of topics in accordance with the providers training policy. We saw that new staff were inducted appropriately and inductions were in line with The Care Certificate.

Information in people’s risk assessments was relevant and meaningful and contained detailed actions, which helped staff to support people appropriately.

Staff were kind and compassionate when working with people. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified.

The manager and the staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and their roles and responsibilities linked to this. Best interest processes had been followed for advanced decision making and where people were deemed to not have capacity.

Consent was well documented in people’s care plans for individual tasks, and this was signed by the people themselves, or their relatives.

There was a complaints procedure in place which was available in different formats and people told us they would know how to complain if they had to.

People were supported to go shopping for themselves and, when possible, to make themselves snacks. People could have drinks as and when they wanted as the kitchen was readily accessible to everyone living in the service.

People and staff were complimentary about the manger and the provider in general, and said they would recommend working for the company.

Staff were aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy and told us they would not hesitate to report any concerns or bad practice.

Systems were in place to monitor the standard of the service and drive forward improvements. This included a number of audits for different areas such as health and safety, medication, care planning and training. There were clear and transparent action plans when the audit process identified areas of improvement.