The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Pizey Avenue

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

7 Pizey avenue, Clevedon, Somerset, BS21 7TS (01275) 341753

Provided and run by:
The Brandon Trust

All Inspections

25 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 25 January 2015 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out on 14 November 2013 and there had been no breaches of legal requirements at that time.

Pizey Avenue is registered to provide accommodation and personal care in the form of ‘short stay’ care for people with learning disabilities. This is also known as ‘respite’ care. Four people are able to stay at any one time and overall there are between 40 and 50 people who use the service. People’s needs are assessed by both the local authority and the service. The local authority agrees a rota for the year for people to use the service. Depending on people’s assessment outcome determines the amount of days per year a person can have.

A registered manager was in post at the time of inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

At the time of our inspection there were three people using the service and some people told us what it was like to use the service. For other people that were unable to verbally express their views, we spent time in shared areas to observe the care that was being provided. People’s comments included: “Staff are lovely and if I didn’t feel safe and happy I would tell [name]. They are a senior staff”.

Staff received training and understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it had an impact on their work. Within people’s support plans we found the service had acted in accordance with legal requirements when decisions had been made where people lacked capacity to make that decision themselves.

Staff had attended Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training (DoLS). This is legislation to protect people who lack mental capacity and need to have their freedom restricted to keep them safe. One person in the home was subject to a DoLS authorisation. All documentation was appropriately completed that protected the person’s human rights.

We found the provider had systems in place that safeguarded people. One person we spoke with told us “I feel very safe here. I love coming here”. Staff received safeguarding adults training and staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the process and who to report concerns to.

Staffing levels were sufficient on the day of our inspection. Staff told us staffing levels were adjusted depending on the needs of people who were coming to stay.

The provider had ensured that staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. Training was provided about current practice guidance and staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s needs. One member of staff told us how they were being supported to undertake further development training that would enhance their role and they would share this with the rest of the team.

Most people who were staying at Pizey Avenue at the time of our inspection did not require any medicines to be administered by staff. However one person managed their own medicines and a policy and arrangements were in place to ensure this was safe to do so.

People received and were involved in reviews of their care needs to ensure that staff had up to date information about how to meet their. The care reviews also ensured the support plans continued to effectively meet people’s needs. As the service provided a ‘short stay’ for people gaps between stays could be a few months. Therefore when a person returned for another visit, staff checked with family/professionals to ensure no changes in their needs had occurred.

People’s records demonstrated their involvement in their support planning and decision making processes. Pictures were used to enable people to understand what was being asked of them where they needed help with communication. One person told us how they were able to be involved at every stage of their care planning.

Staff meetings and registered manager meetings took place with the operations manager on a regular basis. Minutes were taken and any actions required were recorded and actioned.

Quality and safety in the home was monitored to support the registered manager in identifying any issues of concern. People were asked their views each time they used the service and at any reviews of their care and support needs so they could express their views and opinions about the service,

There were systems in place to obtain the views of people who used the service and their relatives and satisfaction surveys were used 2013 - 2014. This was provided in a format to meet people’s individual communication needs that used the service. The arrangements for this ‘short stay’ service are currently being reviewed by the local authority. As part of this the provider was gathering people’s views to be considered.

14 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The purpose of this inspection was to follow up non-compliance from our inspection in August 2013. This was because when we inspected the provider did not have effective systems to seek the views and experiences of people who use the service and their representatives.

The provider sent us an action plan that detailed how they would achieve compliance. During this inspection the actions the provider told us they were planning to take, had been implemented within the service. Systems were now in place to seek the views of people who used the service.

We spoke with two members of staff that were on duty, a person that used the service and a visiting relative. Staff were aware of the action plan to ensure on-going compliance.

The person we spoke with told us they stayed on a weekly basis at Pizey Avenue. They told us they liked visiting the service and the staff that supported them. A relative told us they had no concerns about the care and support that was in place. They told us there was good communication with the staff and their relative enjoyed visiting Pizey Avenue.

18 August 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection there were 4 people staying at the service. We spoke with three people living at the home. One person told us 'I like coming to Pizey Avenue, I get to see my friends and we got out to different places'.

People told us that they were able to choose what they wanted to do their time at Pizey Avenue.

Support plans were person centred and people we spoke with were aware of their care plans and told us that staff went through the plans with them on a regular basis.

From speaking with people and staff we established that the care and support detailed in people's care plans accurately reflected the care and support being provided to people.

People told us that they liked the activities and trips out that were arranged by the service. One person told us 'I like going out with staff, we go shopping, to the caf' and the sea front".

People told us that they liked staying at the home and observations suggested that they were very comfortable in the environment.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to raise concerns.

Staff told us that they received appropriate training and support to enable them to support people effectively. However, we found that staff supervision meetings were not taking place as described in the provider's supervision policy.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to collect regular feedback from people who used the service.

14 December 2012

During a routine inspection

People that we met on the day of our visit appeared comfortable and at ease in the home. One person commented that they "love it", and their relative also confirmed that they were happy with the service and that staff were "fantastic". People were supported in a way that was respectful.

We saw that support plans were in place and provided information that would allow staff to support people in a person centred way. We heard that there were some challenges in ensuring that people's needs were reviewed regularly due to the fact that they attended the service for short stays and there may be long gaps between visits.

People were supported in a clean and hygienic environment and there were policies and procedures in place to support staff in this. Staff had training in food hygiene and first aid to support them in carrying out their duties. Staffing levels were appropriate for the number of people being supported and could be flexible according to the level of need.

There was a complaints procedure in place and we were given examples of when people's concerns had been managed informally. We were told that staff were approachable.

4 January 2012

During a routine inspection

We met with two people who were currently at Pizey Avenue for a short break stay. Because of their learning disabilities and limited communication skills, they were unable to tell us anything about the service provided at Pizey Avenue. However, our observations from watching the interactions between the staff and people were positive. We found that people were treated respectfully, and were included in making decisions about their activities.

We spoke with the families of four people who use the service on a regular basis. They each told us that the service was a vital part of their relative's community care package. 'The care provided is absolutely brilliant. They look forward to going there and are happy when they come home again. They have a good time and are well looked after', 'the service is very good and the staff know all about my relatives eating and dietary needs' and 'my relative is well looked after and well fed'.

One of the families that we spoke with after our visit to the service told us 'I know that they are safe when they have a short break stay'.

Families were complimentary about the staff team. We were told 'the staff are very good', 'the staff are loving and kind' and 'the staff are very dedicated and can not do enough'.