CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Autumn Vale Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safeguarding procedures, risk assessments, recruitment checks and safe medicines management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and support. People received help with their health, nutrition and appointments, and the home followed the Mental Capacity Act principles.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with respect and protected their privacy and dignity. People were involved in planning their care and staff knew their histories, interests and preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. The home offered activities based on people's interests, responded to complaints and provided compassionate end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture and clear management arrangements. The home used meetings, surveys, audits and action plans to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since earlier inspections.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 June and 3 July 2018. Inspectors spoke with four people, staff and managers. They reviewed five people's care, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, staffing rotas, risk assessments and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed correctly, staffing was sufficient and staff were trained and supported.
People were treated with dignity and involved in their care. Care plans included people's routines, preferences and health needs. Activities were linked to people's interests, complaints were handled, and end-of-life care was described as responsive and compassionate.
The report says legal breaches found in 2016 had been addressed. A focused inspection in 2017 found significant improvements in safe care and leadership. This inspection found the home continued to meet the required standards.
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked medicines records for six people and found no unexplained gaps. Staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were managed, stored and given to people as prescribed.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received ongoing training, induction, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found they understood people's individual needs.
“People's needs were met by staff who had relevant skills, competencies and knowledge.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff protected people's dignity and privacy, asked for consent and built friendly relationships with people.
“Staff showed kindness and compassion whilst providing people with care and support.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, backgrounds, preferences and ways of communicating. Activities reflected individual interests.
“The service had prepared person-oriented plans which reflected how people wanted to receive their care and support.” from the report
Positive leadership
People and staff praised the management. The home had clear responsibilities, regular meetings and quality checks.
“There was an open and caring culture throughout the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are on duty for each shift, and how do you adjust staffing when people's needs change?
- 02How do you check that medicines, including as-needed medicines, are given and recorded safely?
- 03How are each person's activities, routines and communication preferences recorded and reviewed?
- 04How are families involved in care reviews and decisions about a person's health or support?
- 05What improvements have been made since the previous inspection, and how are they checked now?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; medicines were safer than before but storage checks and one missed dose remained concerns.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 July 2017. Inspectors checked whether the home had improved medicines management and its quality checks after earlier legal breaches. They spoke with four people and three staff, observed care, and reviewed medicines records, stock and audits.
The home had improved its medicines systems. Records were clearer, staff had completed medicines competency checks, and monthly audits were being carried out. However, storage temperatures were not checked consistently, and one person missed a prescribed medicine the night before the inspection.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because inspectors needed to see safe medicines practice working consistently over time. Well-led was rated Good because the management team had introduced better audits, action plans and feedback systems.
Improved medicines records
The medicines records and guidance had improved. Inspectors found labelled, in-date creams, recorded balances and clearer information for staff.
“Of the seven people whose medicines we reviewed we found creams to be labelled and in date” from the report
Better medicines guidance
Each person had medicines information including guidance for medicines taken when needed. Staff understood what medicines people took and why.
“Each person had their own medicines file which contained a photo of them, MAR, PRN protocols and information about their medicines.” from the report
Stronger quality checks
The home had introduced several audits, formal provider visits and action plans to track improvements.
“Multiple audits were in place to assess the quality of the service and action plans developed to make necessary improvements.” from the report
Supportive management
People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and provider. They described them as approachable and willing to help.
“Everyone we spoke with including people and staff consistently described both the registered manager and directors as approachable, supportive and keen to help.” from the report
Medicine storage temperatures
needs fixingChecks on medicine storage temperatures were inconsistent. This meant the provider could not be sure medicines were always stored at the correct temperature.
“Therefore, the provider was not able to assure themselves that medicines were consistently being stored at the correct temperature and in line with the manufacturer's instructions.” from the report
One missed prescribed dose
seriousOne person did not receive a prescribed medicine the night before the inspection. Inspectors said this had not caused an adverse effect, but it was not given as prescribed.
“We did find one person had not received a prescribed medicine the night before our inspection visit.” from the report
- 01How are medicine storage temperatures checked in each person's room and in the central storage areas?
- 02What action is taken when a prescribed medicine is missed?
- 03How often are medicines records and stock checked now, and who reviews the results?
- 04How will you show that the improvements to medicines management have become consistent?
- 05What recent changes have been made as a result of people's and staff members' feedback?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 August 2017 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 Autumn Vale Rest Home
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 2011.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.