CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 95 Ashley Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable recruitment checks and arrangements to manage risks, accidents, emergencies and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on assessed needs. Staff had training and support, and people were helped with food, health appointments, legal consent and positive behaviour support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people’s preferences and supported privacy, dignity, communication, choice and independence. People were observed to be comfortable with staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal and reviewed regularly. People were supported with their communication, cultural needs, hobbies, interests and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had oversight of the home, used quality checks and worked with other agencies. Staff, relatives and professionals were invited to give feedback.
What inspectors found, September 2019
95 Ashley Avenue was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with no breaches reported.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was an announced visit on 30 August 2018, carried out by one inspector. The inspector observed care, spoke with staff and a relative, contacted professionals, and checked care, medicines, staffing and quality records.
At the time, one person lived at the home, although it was registered for up to five people. The person could not give verbal feedback, so the inspector relied on observation and information from others. The person appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff.
The inspector found that people were safe, received their medicines correctly, and had enough trained staff to meet their needs. Care plans were personal and regularly reviewed. Staff supported choice, independence, health care, activities and communication.
The home received Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. No breaches of regulations, enforcement action or special measures are mentioned in the report.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, records had no gaps, and regular checks were completed.
“The records were up to date and had no gaps, showing all medicines administered had been signed for.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff knew people’s backgrounds, preferences and goals. Care plans explained how each person preferred to be supported.
“There was a person centred culture at the service, with care planned around the individual.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and take part in everyday tasks such as cooking, cleaning and laundry.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Activities and community life
Activities were planned around individual interests, including outings and activities in the community.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities in the community.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff on duty, with recruitment checks, induction, ongoing training and supervision in place.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many people live at the home now, and is the staffing level still matched to their individual needs?
- 02How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person’s needs or behaviour changes?
- 03How will you support someone who cannot communicate verbally to express choices, concerns or complaints?
- 04What activities and community outings are currently available, and how are they based on each person’s interests?
- 05How are medicines checked, including medicines prescribed to be taken as and when required?
This was the first full inspection of the home and covered all five CQC questions, but only one person’s records and limited direct feedback were available. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 2019 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 95 Ashley Avenue
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 October 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.