South Avenue

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Systems were in place to manage safeguarding incidents and staff were trained in safeguarding people from abuse. Risk assessments were in place to reduce people's risk of harm. Informative care plans provided staff with a clear overview of people's care needs. Sufficient and appropriately trained staff were deployed. Staff received regular supervisions and training.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff had received training on how to recognise abuse and what to do if concerns were noted. Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise a concern with the management or external parties. One staff member told us, "We have a board with lots of safeguarding information on, we all have training this includes whistleblowing". Another staff member told us, "We must keep service users safe, look out for any issues, report issues, record issues, there is an anonymous number you can ring if you think something is not right."

We observed staff to support people safely, in line with their care plans. People appeared happy and relaxed at South Avenue and it was evident staff knew people well.

We spoke with 4 people about what it was like to live at South Avenue, the feedback we received was consistently positive. One person told us staff were "Brilliant and good." another told us "Staff are good, they helped me to get a job." We observed how the staff interacted with people and how each person reacted to them, including body language and facial expressions, this helped us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us, our observations were positive. Staff responded promptly to people and ensured their safety. Relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe. They said they believed their family members would go to staff with any problems they might have, and they would be listened to. One commented; "[Name] would tell the staff if anything was bothering them.”

Safeguarding incidents had been correctly reported, recorded and investigated. Appropriate actions and referrals to relevant professionals had been made to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. The registered manager regularly analysed accidents and incidents to identify any emerging themes or patterns in order to improve the care provided. These findings were then shared with the staff team. Risks which affected people's daily lives were documented and known by staff. The management team monitored and regularly assessed these risks and took appropriate actions to ensure people received care in a safe and consistent way.

We observed staff to safely support people throughout our visit. For example, we found guidance had been sought from external health care professionals where people required additional support or specific risks such as choking had been identified. We observed the guidance external professionals provided was followed in staff practice.

People were supported safely with their day to day lives, hobbies and interests that people chose had been risk assessed and there was detailed person-centred guidance was in place for staff to follow. People told us how staff supported them to go horse riding, to the local pub and out to work.

The registered manager had implemented a keyworker system, which provided people with regular opportunities to review and update their care plans. People invited their relatives and professionals who were involved in their care to their annual reviews where action plans were created to ensure people's desired outcomes were updated.

Risks to people were assessed, and measures were taken to mitigate risk. This ensured people received care and support in a consistent and safe way. For example, one person was assessed as needing support with their mobility. We found detailed person-centred care plans in place which provided staff with guidance on how to support people safely.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People consistently told us staff were available to support them when they needed. People were supported in line with their care plans and commissioned support hours. Relatives also felt sufficient staff were available and confirmed staff understood people's needs well.

The provider operated safe recruitment processes. This included undertaking appropriate checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and obtaining suitable references. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their individual needs throughout our visit. We observed staff to respond to people in a timely manner and be available to support people with what they wanted to do both inside and outside of the service.

Staff consistently told us there was enough staff available to meet people's needs. Staff told us about the training they had received to carry out their roles and how additional specific training had been provided for people who required support with delegated health care tasks.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.