Archived: Aviary Court

Aviary Court is registered to provide personal care to older people within an extra care housing scheme. At the time of the inspection, there were 14 people receiving support from the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 told us they felt safe. Staff understood how to identify and report concerns of abuse and knew how to manage risks to keep people safe.

We saw there were sufficient numbers of staff available to support people. Staff had undergone checks prior to starting work to ensure they were suitable to care for people.

People were supported with their medication in a safe way. Staff had received training before giving medication to ensure they were safe to do this.

People were supported by staff who had received training to enable them to meet people’s needs. People had their rights upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by staff who understood how to support people to make their own decisions.

People were given choices at mealtimes and supported to have enough to eat and drink. People were supported to access health care services when required.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity. Staff supported people to be involved in their care and to maintain their independence where possible. People were able to access advocacy services if required.

People were involved in the assessment and review of their care. Staff understood people’s needs and preferences with regards to how their care is delivered.

There was a complaints procedure in place and where people had complained, action had been taken to resolve these.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Where areas for improvement were identified, these were acted upon.

People felt the service was well led and were given opportunity to provide feedback on their experience of the service.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

All the people we spoke with lived in an extra care facility. The extra care facility had a number of communal lounges and a dining area where meals were provided. People were able to access all parts of the complex and use the facilities if they wished. This meant that people were able to choose the facilities they used. All the people we spoke with told us that they felt safe with the staff that supported them and had the added advantage of being secure in an extra care facility where they support was available. One person told us, 'The staff are very good and it is nice living here because there is always someone to talk to too so I don't feel lonely.' Another person told us, 'I have no problem with the staff that come to me, they make sure everything is secure before they leave and I am alright.' Another person told us, 'I am always happy with the girls that care for me.'

All the staff that we spoke with confirmed that they had received training on how to protect people and understood what safeguarding people meant. All staff spoken with knew about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLS) processes. DOLS is a legal framework that may need to be applied to people in care settings who lack capacity and may need to be deprived of their liberty in their own best interests to protect them from harm and/or injury. No applications regarding DOLS had been submitted by the service. Staff we spoke with were able to explain the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).

Records sampled showed that the provider had systems in place to establish whether people had capacity to give their consent to receiving care and were able to make informed decisions. Staff spoken with understood about people making decisions and how to respect people's rights. For example, supporting people to make choices about their care.

We saw that people had an assessment of their needs and associated risks. A plan of care was completed which enabled staff to offer care and support to people in a safe way. Staff told us and records sampled showed that they had received training and support to enable them to deliver care safely.

Is the care effective?

All the people spoken with told us and records sampled showed that they had been involved in an assessment of their needs and were able to tell staff what support they needed. This meant that people were able influence the care they received.

Everyone that we spoke with told us that staff talked to them about their care and they always gave their consent to being supported. One person that we spoke with told us that staff always ask what I want doing and respect my choices.' Another person told us, 'I am happy with staff they treat me very well and are very friendly.'

All staff spoken with were able to give us good detail about the support they provided to people. All the staff told us that they asked people what they wanted doing each time they visited people. One staff member told us, 'People change their minds so we ask them want they want doing.' People told us that they were supported by the same staff on most care calls which meant people received continuity of care from staff they felt comfortable with.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were happy with the care they received. We saw from daily records sampled that where staff had concerns about people's health, additional visits were made and advice sought from healthcare professionals. We saw that people's involvement with other healthcare professionals was recorded and their advice was followed.

We saw records which showed and people spoken with told us that staff often visited them if they were admitted to hospital. One person told us, 'The staff are always helpful. They get the doctor or my relative if I am unwell.' Another person told us, 'They (staff) are respectful.'.

Is the service responsive?

All the people we spoke with told us that staff did what they wanted them to do. We saw that people's needs were reviewed so that changing needs could be met.

Records sampled showed that there were systems in place to gather the views of people so that the service was developed taking into consideration the views of staff and people who received a service.

People spoken with told us they were happy with the service and had not needed to make any complaints.

Is the service well led?

We saw that the service had a staffing structure that enabled the service to be managed appropriately. This included a manager that had been registered with us and was responsible for the running of the service. People were consulted about the quality of service they received. Comments and suggestions were analysed to identify where improvements were needed.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and received regular training and had frequent staff meetings. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

All staff spoken with told us that they had regular contact with senior members of staff so they could discuss any concerns they may have. Records showed that supervision and staff training was regular and up to date. This ensured that people received care from staff that were suitably skilled to deliver care and feedback was continuously given on their performance so improvements could be made if needed.

We saw that the provider sought feedback from people who used the service regularly. If concerns were identified then action was taken immediately. This meant people were listened to and actions taken as appropriate in a timely manner. One person told us, 'Any worries or issues they (staff) are straight out.'

We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. All the people we spoke with told us they had a care plan and records in their home so staff would know what to do. One person told us, 'It is written down but staff also ask me what I want'.

People's care and health needs were planned and met in a personalised way. All staff spoken with told us they had the information they needed to care for people safely.

Staffs were clear about the action to take should they become aware of an allegation of abuse. All ten people spoken with told us they felt secure and knew who to tell if they had concerns and were confident that these would be acted upon.

Staff spoken with told us they felt supported by the manager, and had regular training opportunities. This meant staff had the skills to care for people safely.

There were systems in place to monitor how the service was run, and action was taken where feedback from the people who used the service had identified what would improve the service provided to them

Staff spoken to was able to tell us about people's care needs so that they were cared for appropriately. One person told us 'I am pleased with the service I have, the staff look after me well'.

We saw that systems were in place to keep people safe from harm.

Staff received a range of training so that they had up to date knowledge and skills in order to support people safely.

There were systems in place to monitor and seek feedback from the people using the service to ensure people received a quality service.