Avon View

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People told us they felt safe and secure at Avon View. Safeguarding procedures were in place. Risks to people were identified, assessed, and planned for. Staff were appropriately skilled and trained to support people’s needs. Medicines management was safe, however, minor omissions were discovered and highlighted to the manager who took immediate action. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those were being met.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe living at Avon View. Some comments we received were: “If I was unhappy about anything I would speak to the staff”, “I feel very safe here. I have a call bell which I use at night. They come straight away”, “Oh yes I feel very safe the staff are lovely.”

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and whistleblowing as part of their mandatory training together with annual updates. The manager said safeguarding is always a topic for discussion in training and meetings. One staff member told us, “I will definitely go to the manager and deputy manager [names] they do listen, I have confidence in them, they would listen, and it would be sorted.” Another member of staff said, “Guidance for raising safeguarding and recognising abuse is everywhere, it’s everywhere we look.” Staff treated people in a respectful way, ensuring they had freedom to choose and were not overly restricted. Posters guiding people, staff and visitors to the correct reporting procedures were displayed throughout the home on notice boards and staff areas.

Safeguarding procedures were robust; a policy was in place and staff knew the correct reporting procedures. Staff had received safeguarding training, and this was updated annually as a refresher. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS, this meant people’s rights were fully respected. The manager had oversight of DoLS applications, authorisations, and conditions. Avon View were supported by and worked with the local authority DoLS who had input into individual circumstances. This contributed to people’s rights being upheld.

Staff understood and were knowledgeable about the risks people had to their safety and wellbeing. Staff told us they had clear information and instructions to follow to make sure they were following the risk plan for people. The manager told us they were continuing to develop risk assessments further for people, ensuring they captured all of the information required. Staff practices were observed as being in accordance with the individual risk assessments in place. We observed many interactions during the inspection and all safety measures were carried out by staff. For example, when supporting people to transfer using equipment.

Policies and procedures around risk management were in place and followed. The home used an electronic care planning system, and the assessments could be updated immediately. This meant staff were always working with the most up to date information.

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and plans were in place to ensure risks were reduced or removed. People told us they were confident in the staff’s ability to keep them safe from risk of harm. The risks people faced were individual to them, for example, mobility, falls, eating and drinking.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

During the inspection the home was fully staffed, and staff allocated as planned. The home was busy, and staff attended people when they asked for help.

Staffing levels were continually reviewed in line with people’s needs. Some feedback suggested staffing levels were lower than required, we raised this with the manager who told us they were in the process of reviewing the way they calculated staffing. Evidence found during the inspection was there was little to no impact of this, and examples given were for additional time to spend with people. Staff told us they had enough training and support to carry out their role effectively. A member of staff spoke about the team and said, “The strength in Avon View is we have the best care staff. All of us love our job. I think the residents see that.”

Staff training policies were in place and training attendance was in line with the providers training plan. Training was blended, a mix of face to face and online courses to support staff’s understanding. Staff support was given formally through supervisions, appraisals, and team meetings. In addition, there was support from senior staff working in the home every day. The provider had oversight of training and development.

People told us staff were there for them when they needed, many indicating they could use their call bell alarm to summon staff support. People told us staff were skilled in the care they provided.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People’s medicines were seen to be given in a safe and caring way. Medicines were administered in a timely manner and recorded on people’s medicines administration records (MAR). People’s preferences were considered, in the way that they liked to take their medicines. Risks were assessed and recorded if people were self-medicating. People had information recorded to help identify and support their needs for ‘PRN’ medicines, these were medicines taken occasionally. However, a few of these documents had recently passed their ‘review by’ date, although they were still relevant. Staff were able to tell us how and when it would be appropriate to give doses. The manager arranged to immediately update the documents. People’s medicines were reviewed by the pharmacist at the GP surgery.

Staff told us the medicines systems currently worked well and they had support from the GP surgery and interim pharmacy. They said they felt well supported. Staff were aware that they would be changing to a new electronic MAR system and pharmacy supplier soon and that training was being arranged. Staff told us they received medicines training and had regular competency assessments, and we saw records that showed these had been completed. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and their medicines. Staff described how medicines errors would be actioned, recorded and followed-up.

MAR were updated consistently to reflect when medicines and topical creams had been administered. When PRN medicines were administered the time, reasons for giving, and outcomes were recorded. When changes were made to prescribed medicines, copies of correspondence were kept as an audit trail for these changes. Patch application records were kept showing removal and rotation of site of application. Storage temperatures were monitored, and there were suitable arrangements for storage, and disposal of medicines including medicines that required stricter controls by law. There were regular checks of these medicines recorded in the register. However, some temperatures were recorded just outside the recommended range. Staff had recorded action taken; however, it had not always been picked up by the internal auditing system. We raised this with the manager, and they sought to rectify immediately. Medicines policies and procedures were in place to support staff.