Turning Point - Avondale

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Leaders and staff could explain how they reviewed support to ensure it was least restrictive. Leaders used an example of how they considered least restrictive interventions when they supported 1 individual to obtain a lease a vehicle that was more suited to their needs.. This meant the person no longer required a bespoke harness when travelling, which significantly reduced the restrictions placed on them.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disabilityrespect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Staff supported people in line with this guidance. For example, people were supported to regularly access the community using their own vehicles. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives. Families told us leaders ensured they were involved in decisions that needed to be made in relation to care and treatment. One relative told us, “I am 110% involved in [person’s] care planning they (staff) keep me informed, they call me if there's anything.”

People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people and their relatives were involved in the process. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse.

Medicines were generally administered safely, and there were systems in place to ensure the environment was safe.

Staff demonstrated they knew people well. We saw staff supporting people with kindness and compassion during the inspection. We saw staff ensure people were able to do activities that interested them and people were regularly going into their community to access activities of their choice. Staff used alternative communication methods to meet peoples need. This ensured people were being empowered to make choices.

People were supported in a person-centred way. They had detailed care plans which outline their interests and their needs. These support plans were regularly reviewed and amended as needed. Professionals and relatives said the registered manager, and staff were proactive in ensuring people were able to access services they needed to in a timely way.

The service was well led. There was a range of governance systems leaders used, and senior leaders also had good oversight. Relatives and professionals were very positive when asked about the registered manager with comments that included “they are very impressive”, “outstanding” and “a great role model for person centred care.” Staff spoke positively about working for the service and highlighted that the leadership of the registered manager was fundamental to their positivity about the workplace. The staff team was made up with people from several different cultural backgrounds, and the registered manager had taken steps to ensure their support needs as staff were identified. They had also worked with staff to make sure the team were fully integrated. By doing this they ensured high quality care was being provided to people.