We carried out a review of the data available to us about Aviary House 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 Aviary House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff reduced the risk of visitors from catching and spreading infection. Staff asked all visitors to show evidence of, or complete, a COVID-19 lateral flow test on arrival. Professional visitors to the service were also asked to provide they had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Visitors were requested to wear face masks whilst visiting the service and masks were available for visitors if required. Hand sanitiser was available throughout the service.
Staff had access to and wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) whilst in the service and delivering care. Staff had received ongoing training about the use of PPE (PPE) and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) and regular observations were completed by the registered manager to ensure staff were following the correct procedures.
Arrangements were made that in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19 staff would work in cohorts with specific people to reduce the risk of spreading the infection throughout the service.
When people were admitted to the service, they were required to complete tests for COVID-19 prior to and following admission. There was a regular testing schedule for staff and people who lived at the service which followed current national guidance.
Staff had plentiful supplies of PPE which complied with current national guidance. Staff had received ongoing training about the use of PPE and infection prevention and control. Regular observations were completed by the registered manager to ensure staff were following the correct procedures.
The service was clean. Daily cleaning schedules were in place and the registered manager checked these were done to an acceptable standard. Regular “deep cleans” of the service were completed by an external organisation.
People who used the service continued to receive good care.
People felt safe and were protected from avoidable harm. Risks associated with people’s care and support were managed well. Staff and the registered manager understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. The building was clean, and staff followed good infection control practices. Plans were in place to safely evacuate the building in the event of an emergency. Enough staff were employed to meet people’s needs and recruitment procedures minimised, as far as possible, the risks to people's safety. Medicines were managed safely by the service. A system to record accidents and incidents that occurred was in place. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong.
People's care, treatment and support continued to achieve good outcomes, promotes a good quality of life and is based on best available evidence. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Staff received support and training to be effective in their roles. The staff team worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received the support they needed to maintain their well-being and health.
People were complimentary about the level of care shown by staff. People’s dignity was maintained and their right to privacy was respected. People were supported to be independent. People maintained relationships that were important to them and were involved in the planning and review of their care.
People’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences. A system was in place to manage complaints about the service and people knew how to complain.
The service was consistently managed and well-led. People and their relatives spoke positively about the management team. Staff enjoyed their jobs and a staff recognition scheme was in place. The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to and the requirements of their registration. Audits and checks were completed to ensure the safety and quality of the service was maintained.
Rating at last inspection:
Good (The date last report published was 1 March 2016)
About the service: Aviary House is registered to provided care and accommodation and personal care and support for up to 28 people living with mental health conditions in Solihull, West Midlands. During our inspection 28 people were in receipt of care and support.
Why we inspected: We inspected the service because it was previously rated 'Good', and it was time for us to return to check whether the rating continued to be 'Good'.
Follow up: Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our reinspection schedule for those services rated Good.
Aviary House is a care service which provides personal care to people in ‘supported living’ accommodation within purpose built flats. At the time of our visit 19 people were being supported with personal care. This was with daily care calls to assist people to live independent lives, ranging from five hours to 37 hours each week. Aviary House support people with severe and enduring mental health conditions.
This was a newly registered service and was their first comprehensive inspection since opening in May 2015.
The service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A registered manager was in post however was on maternity leave at the time of our inspection. An acting manager was covering for them. We spoke with both the acting manager and the registered manager as part of our inspection, as the registered manager came to the service on the day of our visit.
People told us they felt safe using the service and the provider had systems in place to keep people safe. Care workers had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and actions to take if they had any concerns.
People received their medicines when required from staff trained to administer them. The management team checked that staff remained competent to do this and any medicine concerns were used as an opportunity for learning.
Checks were carried out prior to care workers starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service. Care workers received an induction to the organisation and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively.
Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and gained people’s consent before they assisted them with care. Staff were aware of when they should seek further support to enable people to make important decisions.
People who required support had enough to eat and drink during the day and were supported to manage their health needs.
People had care workers they were familiar with, who arrived at the expected time and supported them to complete the required tasks. There were enough staff to care for the people they supported.
People and relatives told us care workers were kind and caring and had the right skills and experience to provide the care required. People were supported with dignity and respect. Staff ensured people were given privacy.
Staff knew people well and were passionate about providing good care which was ‘person centred’ and supported people in the ways they preferred. Staff were creative and open to new ideas to benefit the people they supported.
Care plans contained relevant information for care workers to help them provide personalised care including processes to minimise risks to people’s safety. The management team had identified that care records needed to be updated further and plans were in place to do this.
People knew how to complain and could share their views and opinions about the service they received. Care workers were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the management team and they would be listened to and acted on.
There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided and understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was through regular communication with people and staff. Other checks and audits ensured care workers worked in line with the provider’s policies and procedures.