We carried out a review of the data available to us about 3 Roylen Ave on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 3 Roylen Ave, you can give feedback on this service.
3 Roylen Avenue is a care home registered to accommodate one adult. It is a dormer bungalow in a street of similar properties and is run as an ordinary domestic household. The person has lived with the registered provider and their family for over 30 years, since childhood. He lives with the registered provider as a member of the family. He sees her as his 'mum' and is close to his 'brothers' who he grew up with. The house is close to shops, public transport and local amenities.
At our last inspection we rated the service Good in all domains. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The inspection visit took place on 02 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the service was a small care home for one adult and he is often out during the day.
At the time of our inspection visit one person lived at 3 Roylen Avenue.
The registered provider was an individual who managed the home on a day to day basis. Registered providers 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.
The registered provider was the person's carer. She did not employ any staff. Suitable arrangements were in place to protect the person and keep him safe. He told us he was happy and looked after and said, “I am safe with Mum.” He was involved in shopping for and choosing food. He told us, “Mum’s a good cook. She does the cooking.” He told us he made drinks and snacks for himself when he wanted and made a hot drink for the inspector.
The person showed us his care records about his support needs and routines. He had his healthcare needs met and told us his 'mum' supported him when he needed health appointments.
Although he did not routinely have medicines there was a safe process if he needed any medicines.
The building was a family home the registered provider shared with the person they supported. We found it had been maintained, was homely, clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to live. The person showed us his bedroom. This had been decorated since our last inspection. It was well personalised, comfortable and cheery.
The registered provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw no restrictions on the person's liberty during our inspection. He told us he was able to go out and make choices when he wanted. The registered provider provided care in a way that respected the person’s dignity, privacy and independence. The person told us he was cared for in the way he wanted.
We saw the person enjoyed a variety of meaningful work opportunities, educational and leisure activities. These gave him the opportunity to develop new skills, socialise and get involved in a variety of activities.
The person told us he knew how to complain if needed but was happy living with his ’mum’. He could have access to an external advocate should he want this. There was no formal internal quality assurance in place but informal checks were made routinely. The person and his 'mum' routinely discussed plans or changes, activities and holidays. We found the registered provider was open and transparent. She focused on the needs of the person and on his wellbeing and strived to give him the best life possible.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The service was last inspected in September 2014. The registered provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.
The registered provider was an individual who also managed the home on a day to day basis. Registered providers 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.
3 Roylen Avenue is a care home registered to accommodate one adult. It is a dormer bungalow in a street of similar properties and is run as an ordinary domestic household. The person has lived with the registered provider and their family for close on 30 years, since childhood. He lives with the registered provider as a member of the family. He sees her as his ‘mum’ and is close to his ‘brothers’ who he grew up with. The house is close to the all shops, public transport and local amenities.
The registered provider was the person’s carer. She did not employ any staff. The person was semi-independent and could attend to his care needs with limited supervision.
Suitable arrangements were in place to protect the person from abuse and unsafe care. He told us he was safe in ‘his house’ with ‘his family’. He was supported to make decisions about his personal care needs.
The person showed us his care records. There was information in place about his support needs and routines. He had his healthcare needs met. He told us his ‘mum’ supported him when he needed health appointments.
We found medication procedures in place at the home were safe. If the person needed medicines these were safely kept and appropriate arrangements for storing were in place.
The home was clean and hygienic, well maintained and homely when we visited. The person said he liked his home.
The person was fully involved in shopping and choosing food. He was able to make drinks and snacks independently when he wanted.
The registered provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw no restrictions on the person’s liberty during our visit.
There was no formal internal quality assurance in place but informal checks were made routinely. The person and his ‘mum' routinely discussed plans or changes.
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 staff supporting them and from looking at records.
Only one person lived at this care home. He had lived with the family since childhood as a member of the family. The home is run as a normal domestic household and not a residential care home.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
The individual told us he felt safe and his rights and dignity was respected. He told us he was receiving safe and appropriate care which was meeting his needs.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that the person would be safeguarded as required.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. The person told us they were happy and well looked after.
Is the service effective?
The person's health and care needs had been assessed with him, and he was involved in writing and updating his care records. Risks had been assessed to identify the potential risk of accidents and harm. From the assessments, care had been planned to reduce identified risks.
The individual told us he made his own decisions on a day-to-day basis, with advice, usually from his 'mum' when he wanted it. Their routines ran around his needs, likes and dislikes.
Is the service caring?
The person was supported by his 'mum' and 'family' who had cared for him since he was a child. They were patient and loving and gave encouragement and support in all his activities.
When we arrived at his home the person showed us photographs on his laptop of his recent activities and holidays. He took us into the garden to see his new greenhouse that he had helped to build and the vegetables he was growing. He was clearly happy and fulfilled, enjoying an interesting life with varied activities and a close family network which gave him love and support. The person said, 'We have a great time, me and Mum. We often go out for meals on our days out.'
Is the service responsive?
Routines and activities were organised around the person's needs, likes and dislikes. He told us how he and his 'mum' planned their days out and of activities they had done recently.
We saw that where the person had any health issues these were discussed with him to make sure that he understood and to seek his agreement. These were dealt with in a timely manner.
He knew how to make a complaint if he was unhappy. However he told us he had no reason to complain.
Is the service well-led?
Although there was no formal quality assurance system in place, the provider constantly checked whether she was meeting the person's needs and desires.
Records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving and providing person centred care
The person was encouraged to make decisions about his care. He made decisions routinely about his lifestyle. He told us that his routines were based on his own choices of work and leisure activities. He said that he made his own decisions on a day-to-day basis.
The house was pleasantly furnished to a high standard. It was warm and comfortable and the person had a choice of communal areas to relax in.
We saw from talking to the person and from records and that the person was happy and fulfilled in his home and with his 'family'. He was part of a close family network which gave him support. He carried out regular volunteer work and enjoyed frequent days out and holidays with his 'family'. He was able to pursue an independent lifestyle with support and guidance from his 'family'.
The person told us he was happy living at the new house with his 'mum' and they are busy 'doing up' the house and garden. He showed us around the house and told us the improvements they had been making. He said he liked the new house better than the old one and that they were settled and happy there. He also talked about recent increased responsibilities in his voluntary job in a local charity shop and how he enjoyed the work.
He discussed his leisure activities and his frequent day trips with his 'mum' and how they enjoyed them. He told us about his recent holidays to 'his family' in Ireland and an extended family holiday to Centre Parks. He laughingly told us that he and his 'mum' couldn't decide between two different summer holidays and how they kept changing their minds. He also talked about plans for him and his 'mum' to do some courses at a local college.
We discussed with the person what he would do if he felt unsafe or worried. He said that he would tell his 'family' and they would sort it. He said he was listened to and any concerns dealt with.