Archived: Avalon Court Care Centre

Updated 3 March 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.

This inspection took place on 6 January 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection was undertaken by two inspectors, a specialist advisor and an expert-by-experience. A specialist advisor is someone who has current and up to date practice in a specific area. The specialist advisor who supported us was an experienced nurse.

An expert-by-experience is someone who has knowledge and experience of using, or caring for someone, who uses this type of service.

We spoke with ten people who lived at the home and three people’s visitors or relatives. We spoke with 13 members of staff including five care workers and a senior care worker, a nurse, a floor manager and the deputy manager, the head chef and a cook, the house keeper and the registered manager. We also spoke with health professionals who regularly visited the service

Before our inspection we also reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at information received from statutory notifications the provider had sent to us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.

We also contacted the local authority commissioners for Coventry and Warwickshire to find out their views of the service provided. These are people who contract care and support services paid for by the local authority.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information as part of our inspection planning.

We observed care and support provided in communal areas and we observed how people were supported to eat and drink at lunch time. We looked at a range of records about people’s care including four care files, daily records which described the care people received each day, and fluid and food recording charts for four people. This was to assess whether the care people needed was being provided.

We also looked at three staff files, staff training records and staff rotas to check that safe recruitment procedures were in operation, and that staff received appropriate support to continue their professional development.

In addition we requested information from the provider about audits conducted within the home. This was requested to see what actions the provider was taking to make improvements in the home.

Updated 3 March 2016

We inspected Avalon Court Care Home on 6 January 2016. The inspection visit was unannounced.

The home was divided into three separate floors. The ground floor provided residential living, the first floor, known as the Memory Suite, provided care and support for people with dementia care needs, and the second floor a “Step-down” unit provided short term rehabilitation nursing care. This is for people who have been in hospital who need further nursing support before going back to their own homes. The home provided personal and nursing care for up to 101 people. There were 52 people living at the home when we inspected the service. The home had a third floor but this was not yet occupied as the provider was in the process of recruiting staff.

A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.

People were protected against the risk of abuse as the provider took appropriate steps to recruit suitable staff, and staff knew how to protect people from harm. Safeguarding concerns were investigated and responded to, however the provider failed to notify us of a recent incident at the home that was being investigated.

Due to a number of staff having left the provider’s employment, staffing numbers were supported by the use of agency nurses and care staff, to ensure there were enough staff available at the times people needed them. However, some people told us they did not consistently receive safe care and support from staff who knew them, and at times there were not enough staff to meet their needs. The provider tried to ensure continuity of care by using agency staff that had worked at the home before and was actively recruiting new staff.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place to protect people however risk assessments were not consistently followed to keep people safe. Some care plans lacked detail about people and their care. However, staff spoken with had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs.

Medicines were administered safely however documentation was not always completed correctly. People were supported to access healthcare from a range of professionals inside and outside the home and received support with their nutritional needs. This assisted them to maintain their health.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Decisions were made in people’s ‘best interests’ where they could not make decisions for themselves.

Care staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.

People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints received were fully investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. People, who used the service, and their relatives, were given the opportunity to share their views about how the service was run through meetings.

Quality assurance procedures identified where the service needed to make improvements and where issues had been identified the manager took action to continuously improve the service.

People were encouraged to maintain their interests and hobbies and staff supported their personal preferences . People's care records were not consistently kept up to date to reflect the care and support they received each day from staff.

Staff were supported by the registered manager, deputy manager and floor managers through regular team meetings and observation. Staff had regular supervision sessions and felt their training and induction supported them to meet the needs of people they cared for. People and their relatives felt the permanent staff had the skills and knowledge to support people well.

The registered manager and deputy manager felt well supported by the provider who visited regularly.