CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 43 Florence Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems for visitor screening, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and managing possible outbreaks. They also noted that the provider had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control, but Safe was inspected and not rated.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
Inspectors found good arrangements for testing visitors, checking temperatures, using protective equipment and cleaning high-touch areas. They were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
The overall rating was Good. However, this visit did not provide a rating for Safe and was not a full inspection of all areas of care.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors were screened before entering, including checks of vaccination status, lateral flow test results and temperature. A designated visitor area helped reduce infection risks.
“Designated testing areas were used to ensure visitor screening checks were undertaken prior to visitors entering the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was available in busy areas, with adequate supplies and staff training on safe use.
“PPE stations were available in high traffic areas and the provider ensured there was an adequate stock of PPE.” from the report
Cleaning and outbreak planning
Cleaning schedules included extra attention to frequently touched areas. There were arrangements to reduce contact when someone tested positive and to manage outbreaks.
“There were systems in place to ensure people who tested positive for COVID-19, were supported to minimise contact with others.” from the report
Up-to-date guidance
The home had an up-to-date infection prevention and control policy, and the registered manager knew where to obtain outbreak advice.
“The provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current arrangements for visitor testing and screening?
- 02How does the home manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 03How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 04What happens if a resident tests positive for COVID-19?
- 05When were the other areas of care, including Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, last fully assessed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; Safe was inspected but not rated, and the other questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 2022 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with adequate staffing and strong support for independence.
This was an unannounced inspection over 6 and 9 March 2020. One inspector spoke with two people, a relative, five staff and the registered manager. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training records and management audits.
The home supported eight younger adults with autism and learning disabilities. Inspectors found robust risk plans, safe medicines management, suitable staffing and thorough recruitment checks. Staff were trained, people's health was monitored and their dietary and cultural needs were considered.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans reflected people's wishes and communication needs. People were supported to make choices, build independence, take part in activities and access the local community.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 5 September 2017.
Clear risk planning
Risk plans gave staff clear instructions about known risks and were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Risk management plans gave staff succinct guidance on how to mitigate identified risks.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, develop everyday skills and take part in activities at home and in the community.
“The service placed an emphasis on supporting and encouraging people to remain independent where safe to do so.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans used pictures and recorded how each person communicated, including through Makaton or picture-based communication.
“The majority of the care plan was in pictorial format, enabling people to understand the information held about them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff sought permission, respected decisions and protected privacy.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff seeking people's permission to support them” from the report
Active management
The registered manager used audits and feedback to check areas such as medicines, care plans, risks and staff training.
“The registered manager carried out regular audits of the service to drive improvements.” from the report
Previous staffing shortages
minorA staff member said staffing had been short in the past, although inspectors found enough staff at this inspection and were told things had improved over the previous three months.
“Now there are enough staff, before there wasn't as we were always short.” from the report
Training gap
minorInspectors identified a gap in training. The registered manager made a plan for this to be updated within seven days.
“Where we had identified a gap in training, the registered manager devised a plan to ensure this was updated within seven days.” from the report
- 01What training gap was identified during the inspection, and was it completed within seven days?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff on every shift, given the previous staffing shortages?
- 03How are each person's risk plans reviewed when their needs or behaviour changes?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs, including any use of pictures, Makaton or other communication methods?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, and how would their choices be recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; the report says all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 2020 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 43 Florence Avenue
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodstayed Good
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 September 2016.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Merton
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.