The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: 46a Eastern Avenue

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 5RY (0118) 966 7105

Provided and run by:
Voyage 1 Limited

All Inspections

20 & 22 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 20 and 22 January 2015 and was unannounced. 46a Eastern Avenue provides accommodation and personal care for up to 6 people with a learning disability. There were 3 people living at the home when we visited.

The home has a registered manager. 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.

People who use the service were safe. Staff knew how to keep people safe from abuse and knew what do if they thought a person was a risk. Risk to people’s safety were assessed and managed well. People were supported to be as independent as possible while remaining safe. There were enough suitable staff to keep people safe, and recruitment practices were robust.

Staff were well supported by managers and had regular training and supervision to enable them to meet the needs of people who use the service. People were helped to have enough to eat and drink and staff supported people to maintain a healthy diet, as well as with shopping and cooking. People were supported to remain healthy and appropriate referrals were made to health care professionals when needed.

Staff were caring. Staff spoke to people who use the service in a caring and respectful way. People were involved in making decisions about their care and care plans were person centred.

People were involved in regular reviews of their care needs. Staff knew how to identify changes to people’s care needs and the appropriate action they should take. The provider regularly sought feedback from people who use the service, relatives, staff and others, and acted on it. They had a good complaints procedure in place, which people were supported to use if they needed to.

The service was well led. Staff were well motivated and gave positive feedback about working for the provider. The registered manager and provider had a strong emphasis on improving the quality of service. There was a robust incident and accident monitoring system in place. The registered manager led by example and promoted an open culture among staff.

31 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection on 01 May 2013, we identified concerns about a lack of adequate maintenance of the premises. These included a cracked and leaking sink and unsafe decking in the garden. At this inspection, we found that all of the concerns identified had been addressed. The person who used the sink told us they were happy with the new one.

People who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. The provider had taken steps to ensure the premises and grounds were adequately maintained.

This report only relates to the premises at 46a Eastern Avenue, and not the outreach service.

1 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who use the service and one relative. One person was unable to communicate with us verbally and two people were out at the time of our visit.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We observed the home was generally clean and tidy. A relative we spoke with told us the home was clean. Staff we spoke with had recent infection prevention and control (IPC) training.

The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed, but not always adequately maintained. One person we spoke with told us they had recently had their bedroom decorated and a new carpet laid. However, we found lack of maintenance for bedroom sinks, and an area of inadequately maintained decking in the garden, which was unsafe. We saw evidence that other regular maintenance of the premises had been undertaken, for example, fire systems and gas safety certificates.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

The provider had systems in place to deal with comments and complaints. Information about complaints was provided in a format that met people's needs and people were made aware of the complaints system. We spoke with a relative of a person who uses the service. They told us they were aware of the complaints process and would be happy to use it if they needed to.

10 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who use the service and two of their relatives. They told us they or their relatives had been involved in the planning of their care. Care plans were person centred and tailored to meet the needs of the individual.

People who use the service had the opportunity to undertake activities of their choosing in the community. They were supported by staff when needed. One member of staff told us 'we respect their choices' and they try to be 'as flexible as possible'.

People who use the service or their relatives told us people felt safe. Staff were able to demonstrate a good knowledge of recognising the signs of abuse and what action to take if they had any concerns.

Staff had regular training, supervision and appraisals, and told us they felt well supported by managers. A relative told us they thought the staff were well trained and 'they take their job very seriously'.

The provider had appropriate procedures in place to monitor the quality of the service they provided. They did an annual satisfaction survey and regular quality audits. They took action when any concerns were highlighted.