CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Avalon Court Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough suitably skilled staff. Medicines were managed safely, although some equipment checks and reviews of covert medicines needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff were trained and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Records about nutrition, routine appointments and some mental capacity assessments were not always complete or clear.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Responsive was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible and approachable management, open communication and systems for checking quality. Inspectors found some audits needed stronger oversight of records and equipment.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, but records and some equipment checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 January 2024. Inspectors and Experts by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and positive support from managers.
There were some weaknesses in records and checks. Food and fluid records, weekly weights, some health appointment records, equipment checks and some mental capacity assessments were not always clear or complete. The manager took action during or after the inspection, and inspectors found no evidence of harm.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, with safe recruitment checks and a consistent staff team.
“The provider ensured there were enough suitably skilled staff to support people safely.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff training and competency checks supported safe administration.
“Robust systems and processes ensured medicines were ordered, stored, administered, and disposed of safely.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found strong infection prevention practices and an exceptionally clean and tidy home.
“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Listening to residents
The home had introduced Resident Ambassadors so people could speak up and help shape the future of the home.
“The provider was proactive in ensuring people's voices were heard and helped shape the future of the home.” from the report
Working with health services
The home worked with healthcare professionals and used electronic monitoring to help identify deteriorating health early.
“Staff regularly monitored people to identify any signs of ill-health.” from the report
Nutrition records
needs fixingRecords were not always accurate or complete for people at risk of malnutrition and weight loss. This included unclear records about fortified diets and missed weekly weights.
“some inconsistency in the quality and accuracy of staff records to manage the risks for people at risk of malnutrition and weight loss.” from the report
Health appointment records
needs fixingRecords did not always clearly show when people last had routine appointments such as dental or chiropody appointments. The manager reviewed the health notes after inspectors raised this.
“records were not always clear when people last had other routine appointments such as dentist or chiropody.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments did not give enough information about people's involvement in decisions or the steps taken to involve them as much as possible.
“these assessments would have benefited from more information to evidence people's involvement in the decision-making process” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure fortified diets and weekly weights are recorded correctly for people at risk of malnutrition or weight loss?
- 02How often are walking frames and airflow mattress settings checked, and how do you record those checks?
- 03How do you make sure records show when each person last attended routine appointments such as dental or chiropody appointments?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments written to show the person's involvement and the steps taken to support their decision-making?
- 05How often are decisions about covert medicines reviewed and recorded?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 2024 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, November 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home required improvement for safety because agency staffing and some care practices were not always reliable.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 16 October 2017. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and meals, and checked care records, medicines, training, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Care was rated Good in Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally received kind care, had detailed care plans, were supported with food and healthcare, and could take part in activities and make choices.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Some people waited for help and felt unsafe with unfamiliar agency staff. Inspectors also saw an agency worker use an incorrect moving technique. Three plans for medicines given when needed could not be found during the visit, although the home said it would address this.
Detailed care planning
Care records gave staff useful information about people's needs, preferences and personal history. Staff knew how people wanted to be supported.
“Care plans contained detailed information to inform staff how to support people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were generally treated with kindness and dignity. Staff supported privacy, independence and personal choices.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected and we saw doors were shut when personal care was being delivered and staff supported people to maintain their independence.” from the report
Food and health support
People were offered food and drinks suited to their needs and preferences. The home worked with healthcare professionals and monitored people at risk of weight loss.
“People were supported to maintain a nutritious diet that met their preferences.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, including music, exercise, outings and events. Staff used people's life histories and interests to engage with them.
“There was a comprehensive activities calendar on display throughout the home.” from the report
Safeguarding and risk management
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Individual risks, including falls, were assessed and measures were put in place to reduce them.
“Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from the risks of abuse.” from the report
Agency staffing and delays
needs fixingSome people had to wait for help and did not feel confident with unfamiliar agency staff. The provider was recruiting permanent staff and planned extra evening cover.
“Some people told us at times, they had to wait for staff to be available to support them, and some spoke of feeling unsafe because they were receiving care and support from people they were not familiar with.” from the report
Moving and handling
seriousInspectors saw an agency worker use an incorrect technique when helping someone move between chairs. A manager intervened and stopped that worker from carrying out further moving and handling during the shift.
“During our inspection visit we observed an agency worker incorrectly supporting a person to move from one chair to another.” from the report
Missing as-needed medicine plans
needs fixingThree plans explaining when people should receive medicines given when needed could not be found during the inspection. Staff said they would investigate and address this immediately.
“However we could not locate three people's PRN plans and discussed this with the senior care worker who told us they would address this immediately.” from the report
Incomplete paperwork for disguised medicine
needs fixingThe correct paperwork had been completed by the GP for one person's medicine to be disguised in food, but the family paperwork had not yet been completed.
“The GP had completed the correct paperwork however this had not yet been completed with the family.” from the report
- 01How much agency staff do you use now, and how do you make sure they know each resident's moving and handling needs?
- 02What changes have been made to reduce delays when people press their call bells, especially between 18:00 and 22:00?
- 03How do you check that all as-needed medicine plans are available and followed?
- 04Has the paperwork for medicines disguised in food been completed with the relevant family?
- 05What has happened with the planned recruitment of permanent staff and the extra evening cover?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, and it was the first inspection under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 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 Avalon Court Care Centre
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 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 Coventry
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.