Archived: Avocet Trust - 1183 Holderness Road

Updated 21 July 2018

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 registered 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 unannounced inspection took place on 26 June 2018. The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed information available to us about this service. The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed safeguarding alerts, share your experience forms and notifications that had been sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

The local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams were contacted prior to the inspection. We did not receive any information of concern.

We used the Short Observational Framework for inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who were unable to speak with us.

We spoke with one person who used the service during the inspection, although they engaged in some discussion with us, they were not fully able to describe their experiences of the service. During the inspection we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service. We spoke with one member of staff and the registered manager. Following the inspection, we spoke with one professional. We attempted to contact the relatives of people who used the service, but were unsuccessful.

We reviewed two people's care records, looked at four staff files and reviewed records relating to the management of medicines, complaints, training and we checked records to ensure the provider was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included, the staff rota, minutes of meetings with staff and people who used the service, quality assurance audits, complaints management and maintenance of equipment records. We also completed a tour of the environment.

Updated 21 July 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on the 26 June 2018.

1183, Holderness Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

1183 Holderness Road accommodates up to three adults who have a learning disability and or autistic spectrum disorder related conditions. At the time of the inspection there was one person using the service for respite care (respite care is planned or emergency temporary care provided to caregivers). This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with CQC in July 2017.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service is a detached property situated in the East of Hull, close to local amenities and on a main bus route.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

Health care professionals provided positive feedback about the service.

There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs and safe recruitment systems were in place. Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and support, which enabled them to feel skilled when supporting people who used the service. Additional training had been delivered to the staff to equip them with skills and approaches when supporting people with anxious and distressed behaviour. The staff were motivated and a consistent team approach was evident.

Recruitment checks were robust. They had been carried out to assist the registered manager in making recruitment decisions and to ensure that people were kept as safe as possible.

People received the support they required to maintain adequate nutrition and participated in menu planning and meal preparation where possible. People had formed caring relationships with the staff that supported them. Staff recognised the importance of helping people maintain their independence, privacy and dignity.

The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to make their own decisions and choices. The registered manager had a clear understanding of mental capacity legislation. People had assessments of capacity and best interest decisions made on their behalf if they lacked capacity; documentation regarding best interest decisions had been completed. Appropriate applications had been made to the local authority when people's liberty was deprived due to their lack of capacity and need for continual supervision. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

There was a complaints procedure in place, which was followed by the service when dealing with issues raised by people. The complaints policy was available in an easy to read format within the service.

The environment was safe and clean. Staff used personal, protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infection. Equipment used in the service was checked and maintained to ensure it was safe. Staff knew what to do in cases of emergencies and people who used the service had a personal evacuation plan.

Audits and checks were carried out to monitor all aspects of the service and action plans were developed to highlight any areas, which required improvement. Staff said they enjoyed working with people at the service. People's views and opinions were valued and sought through a variety of mechanisms.

There was a range of activities within the service. Planned visits to local facilities were also completed and people were supported to go on days out in line with their preferences and personal interests.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.