CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 26 Dugard Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection outbreaks could be prevented or managed. They also found suitable arrangements for testing, visitor screening, protective equipment, cleaning and social distancing.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
26 Dugard Avenue was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and Covid-19 safety arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 25 February 2021. Inspectors checked how well the home was prepared to prevent and control coronavirus infections.
The home was following infection control guidance. Inspectors were assured that its policy was up to date, visitors were screened and tested, and people were admitted safely.
Staff used personal protective equipment correctly. The home also had regular testing, increased cleaning, social distancing arrangements, and ways for residents to keep in touch with relatives.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a new overall quality rating, and the inspection only looked at infection prevention and control.
Infection control
Inspectors found that the home was following the correct infection prevention and control guidance and policy.
“The service was following correct infection prevention and control guidance and policy to protect people from infection and prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Testing and visitors
The home used regular testing for residents and staff. Visitors were screened and rapidly tested before entering.
“All visitors were screened and rapid tested prior to entering the premises and visits from relatives were pre-arranged with agreed times to reduce exposure to others living there.” from the report
Protective equipment and cleaning
Staff had infection control training and used protective equipment properly. Cleaning of hard surfaces and frequently touched areas had increased.
“They were using PPE properly and there was a good supply of PPE and hand sanitiser.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home used video calls, newsletters, telephone contact and socially distanced garden visits to help residents keep in touch with relatives.
“Alternative forms of maintaining social contact were used for relatives.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection prevention and control arrangements different now from those checked in February 2021?
- 02What testing arrangements are currently used for residents, staff and visitors?
- 03How are visits from relatives managed now, and what alternatives are available if an in-person visit is not possible?
- 04How do you check that staff use personal protective equipment correctly?
- 05How often are hard surfaces and frequently touched areas cleaned?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 April 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, staff were trained and there were enough staff on shift. Medicines, risks, safeguarding and emergency arrangements were managed appropriately.
Inspectors saw respectful and warm relationships between staff and people. People were supported to make choices, communicate in their own ways, keep in touch with family, use the local community and develop independence skills. Care plans were personal and regularly reviewed.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection, so the rating remained unchanged.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills and found that medicines were received, stored and administered safely.
“There were sufficient numbers of care staff on shift with the correct skills and knowledge to keep people safe.” from the report
Personal communication
Staff understood how people communicated through gestures, signs, body language and other methods. Care records included people's communication needs and decision-making abilities.
“Staff knew people's individual communication skills, abilities and preferred methods and they were able to communicate effectively by interpreting gestures, signs and body language.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose their routines, food and activities. They were also encouraged to build everyday skills such as making drinks and helping with laundry.
“People had choice over their daily routines and were supported to change activities and plans when they decided to.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed positive relationships, patience and humour between staff and people. People's privacy and dignity were respected.
“Staff were caring towards people and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Limited direct feedback from residents
minorNot everyone could speak directly with the inspector because of complex needs. The inspector therefore also used observations and information from records and other people.
“Not all people were able to talk to us about the service they received because of their complex needs.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels are adjusted when a person's daily living, social or leisure needs change?
- 02How will you support my relative to communicate choices, pain, worries and preferences?
- 03How are medicines, including any as-needed medicines, checked and reviewed?
- 04How will my relative be involved in choosing activities, food, routines and personal goals?
- 05How does the team leader keep the home well run when the registered manager is working at the other two homes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report also refers families to the more comprehensive report from the previous visit, published on 13 October 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 May 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 26 Dugard Avenue
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 February 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.