Archived: Avoca

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.