Archived: Flaxman Avenue

Updated 30 December 2017

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 was a comprehensive inspection and took place unannounced on 30 October 2017.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location was a small care home for younger and older adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that someone would be available to speak with us.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert had experience of caring for people with a learning disability or autism and older people who use regulated services.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) which details important data about the service, what has been working well, improvements made since our last visit and future plans for driving improvements. We reviewed notifications from the provider. Notifications are submitted to inform us about significant incidents or changes that happen at the service. We contacted the local authority and other health professionals for their feedback about the service.

Feedback was mixed, issues were highlighted that required further improvements and some positive feedback has been reflected in this report. The local authority told us they had been working with the service and we could see the benefits of the improvements made to record keeping and in the way the service supported people’s independence.

During the inspection we spoke with one person using the service, three relatives, three members of staff and the registered manager. We carried out general observations at the service and reviewed three people’s care plans and other records relating to the management of the service. The expert-by-experience spoke to one relative during the inspection and contacted two relatives for their views after the inspection.

Updated 30 December 2017

Flaxman Avenue is a six bed residential home providing short break support for younger and older adults with Learning Disabilities or Autistic Spectrum Disorder. It supports other needs such as sensory impairment, mental health or physical disabilities. The home is registered to provide accommodation without nursing. All rooms are on the ground floor with wide corridors and entrance areas to allow easy access for those using mobility scooters and wheelchairs.

The home is located on the outskirts of York city centre, in a residential area, with good access to the city`s services and amenities. There is parking available to the front of the home and an enclosed garden at the back of the property.

At the last inspection in September 2015 the home was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the home remained ‘Good’.

Relatives had expressed that they wanted to meet every three months, this had not been implemented during our visit. One health professional felt that partnership working including communication could be improved by the home.

The registered manager had quality assurance systems and audits in place. We found that the maintenance audits and health and safety checks had identified work that needed to be completed, but no follow up actions had been noted.

The registered manager told us they would commence three monthly relatives meetings in 2018 and make plans to improve their partnership working with external agencies such as the local authority.

In view of the above information we recommended that the registered manager reviews record keeping to ensure all actions identified in audits or any other checks are fully completed and recorded.

The registered manager had systems in place to record and monitor safeguarding concerns and accidents and incidents; they had taken appropriate action when required.

Recruitment processes ensured appropriate checks were completed so that suitable people were employed to work with people accessing short breaks at the home. People living at the home were supported to ask their own questions during interviews and their feedback was taken into account when making recruitment decisions.

The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home support this practice.

Risk assessments minimised the potential risk of harm to people living at the home. These were reviewed every six months or sooner if there were any significant changes to people’s needs.

Care plans included information that was important to people, such as their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff had knowledge of promoting dignity and respecting people’s choices. They knew the importance of gaining people’s consent and involving appropriate health professionals, family members or representatives should a best interests meeting need to be organised to reach decisions.

Staff had received training to administer medicines safely and these were stored appropriately.

We were unable to observe meal times as the residents were attending day centres where they had their meals. One person had eaten breakfast at the home in the morning prior to our arrival. The registered manager told us that people had food and drinks available in the kitchen should they need it and staff supported them with preparation and cooking to promote their independence.

The registered manager told us that activities were led by the people living at the home. They told us they accessed a local park and Museums in the City of York.

Relatives and representatives told us they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. The complaints procedure was available and on display during our inspection.

We could see that people’s health care needs had been met whilst at the home and any concerns about people’s well-being were immediately reported and appropriate advice sought. Staff involved relatives or representatives of people living at the home and communicated information to them.

The registered manager had been in post since July 2016 and had been working alongside the local authority to improve service delivery. Part of the improvements that had been completed were to update all care plans so that information was current and reflective of people’s needs. The registered manager had completed regular internal audits of the home, held staff and relatives meetings and distributed survey questionnaires to seek the views of those that used the home.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.