Archived: Bramley Avenue

The people we met at our inspection could not, because of their disabilities, tell us verbally about their experiences and so we used observation to help us understand their experience of the service. We also looked at care records and gained feedback from staff about people's care and support needs. We talked with carers and/or family members. Below is a summary of what we found.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people who could not make decisions themselves were protected. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when a DoLs application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. Staff we spoke with said they had been properly recruited and trained. Staff told us that they received very good support in their roles.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

People's health and care needs were assessed and they were involved in their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A relative said, 'I'm really very pleased with this home. The care there is excellent'. Other comments we received from relatives were, 'The staff are kind and helpful'. 'They keep me fully informed about my relative's health and there are lots of activities for my relative to take part in'.

The responses and views of people using the service, their relatives and professionals involved with the service provision, were recorded at the annual service review. Any shortfalls or concerns raised were addressed.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided by staff in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to enjoy a range of activities and, with staff support, were able to get out and about in the local and wider community. The service had use of two adapted vehicles, which enabled good access to community based facilities.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and of the standards of care and support expected of them. Service monitoring processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

A relative we spoke with told us, 'I'm so happy my relative is in this home, the staff are very good at knowing what my relative likes to do and when my relative does not want to do something". A relative told us that staff acted upon peoples wishes.

During our visit we noted that people were relaxed and calm. We observed that staff supported people in a way that respected their dignity and promoted their independence. The quality of staff interactions with people were positive and staff we spoke with showed a good understanding of how people communicated and involved people in their care as much as possible.

Staff we spoke with told us that they felt well supported to do their job. One member of staff we spoke with described the culture of the home as very open and told us if you need to know something you, "Just ask", and that ,"People using the service were the main priority".

The care records we looked at included detailed information on how people's needs were to be met. We found that because agency staff were employed, an additional folder containing information about how people's needs were to be met and emergency procedures had been put together. This provided them with the important information about individuals and they had to sign to say they had read this and understood the content.

Various auditing tools were in place and these ensured the provider had reviewed and provided people with good care and support.