CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Avalon House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some known risks were not identified in care plans or supported by clear guidance. Medicine administration records contained errors, and some assessments and staff training were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care suited to their needs, including healthcare support, training for staff, suitable food and encouragement to develop life skills.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People helped decide how their care should be provided and were supported with personal interests, activities and important relationships. Care reviews had not always been completed consistently, but the manager addressed this during the inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home's monitoring systems did not reliably identify gaps in risk assessments, medicines records, care reviews or recruitment records. The manager was open and acted quickly after inspectors raised concerns.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safety records and management checks were not reliable enough.
This was the home's first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 5 and 6 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with three people, managers, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People were treated kindly and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities. Inspectors rated effective, caring and responsive care as Good.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Some known risks were not properly recorded or managed. Medicine records contained errors, some self-medication assessments were incomplete, and staff had not yet been trained about one high-risk medicine.
Well-led was also rated Requires Improvement because quality checks had not found these problems. The manager took action during the inspection, but the provider was in breach of Regulations 12 and 17. CQC asked for an action plan and said it would monitor progress and return.
Kind and respectful support
People described staff as friendly, kind and helpful. Inspectors saw calm, friendly interactions and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“The staff are friendly, kind and helpful, they know what to do to support us.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to develop life skills, prepare meals and access the community when this had been assessed as safe.
“One of the aims of the service was to provide people with life skills and goals to enable them to live independently.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to follow their own interests and maintain relationships.
“People had been supported to participate in activities that were of interest to them.” from the report
Quick response during inspection
The manager took immediate action to review risks, improve monitoring and address some medicine and care-record issues during the inspection.
“The manager took immediate action upon receiving feedback of our concerns to review people's risks and put appropriate guidance in place” from the report
Incomplete risk planning
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not cover all known risks. Staff did not always have clear guidance to reduce the risk of harm.
“Care plans and risk assessments were not in place to mitigate all of peoples known risks.” from the report
Medicine records and training
seriousSome medicine administration records were inaccurate. Assessments for people managing their own medicines were incomplete, and staff had not received training about a high-risk medicine.
“Whilst people received safe support with their medicines we found errors in some of the recording of medicine administration.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems had not identified several important problems in care, medicines, recruitment records and risk assessments.
“Monitoring systems had not been effective in identifying that care plans and risk assessments had not been completed for all of people's known risks.” from the report
Care reviews were inconsistent
needs fixingPlanned monthly reviews of care records and notes had not always been completed. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We saw that monthly reviews of peoples care records and notes were planned. However, these had not consistently been completed.” from the report
- 01How have you completed and checked the risk assessments and care guidance for each person?
- 02What changes have been made to medicine recording, self-medication assessments and audits?
- 03Have all staff now received training about the high-risk medicine used at the home?
- 04How do you now check that care reviews and care records are completed on time?
- 05What action was taken in response to the Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 breaches, and what evidence can you show that the improvements have lasted?
This was the home's first planned, unannounced inspection and it assessed all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 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 Avalon House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 November 2018.
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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.