CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aveland Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received medicines safely and as prescribed, and risks, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed well. Inspectors found that guidance for 'as and when required' medicines and records for skin patches needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable training, food, drink and healthcare support. Records did not always clearly show that Mental Capacity Act assessments and best-interest decisions were specific to each decision.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood people's choices and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships, visits and access to the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear leadership, an open culture and systems to monitor care and manage risks. Managers acted quickly on the shortfalls identified during the inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines and Mental Capacity Act records needed improvement.
This was the first inspection since the service registered with the CQC under the new provider. Inspectors visited on 04 January 2023, 09 January 2023 and 10 January 2023. The inspection was unannounced and included speaking with 11 people, 11 staff and reviewing care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people received personalised care from staff who knew their needs and preferences. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness and dignity.
There were two areas where the home needed to improve its records and guidance. These concerned 'as and when required' medicines, medicines given through skin patches, and documentation showing that Mental Capacity Act decisions were made correctly. The provider told inspectors that immediate action had been taken after the inspection.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and care plans reflected their needs, choices and preferences.
“People received person-centred care from staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity and independence being respected.
“People told us staff treated them with dignity and respected their privacy.” from the report
Staffing and safety
People said there were enough staff, and inspectors saw a good staff presence. Recruitment checks and safeguarding arrangements were in place.
“We observed a good staff presence and people did not have to wait long for assistance.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered varied activities, including individual activities for people who stayed in their rooms or did not join groups. Relatives and friends could visit freely.
“One to one activity was provided to people who were cared for in bed or chose not to join in with group activity and were designed around each person's interests.” from the report
Management and improvement
The provider had quality checks and an electronic care planning system. Inspectors said the management team responded promptly to issues raised.
“The provider and management team were committed to providing good quality care and were responsive to the feedback we gave them, immediately addressing any shortfalls we highlighted to them.” from the report
Medicine guidance and patch records
needs fixingThe home needed clearer guidance for medicines given when needed, including how to recognise pain. Staff also needed to record where skin patches were applied and removed.
“Improvements were needed to ensure protocols in place contained enough detail to guide staff when to give people their 'as and when required' medicines.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingThe home was working within the Mental Capacity Act principles, but records did not always clearly show decision-specific assessments and best-interest decisions. One application did not include all the restrictions in place.
“Improvements were needed to ensure records clearly demonstrated assessments and best interests decisions undertaken were decision specific.” from the report
Some care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not give enough guidance about possible complications or when staff should seek advice. The provider took immediate action on the catheter care plan issue raised.
“For example, one person's catheter care plan did not guide staff about potential complications to look out for such as infections or when they should seek advice.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the guidance for 'as and when required' medicines, especially medicines used for pain?
- 02How do you now record the application and removal of medicines given through skin patches?
- 03How do you make sure Mental Capacity Act assessments and best-interest decisions are specific to the decision being made?
- 04How do you check that DoLS applications include every restriction placed on a person?
- 05How have you reviewed care plans to make sure staff have clear guidance about catheter complications and when to seek advice?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection of the newly registered service covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 2023 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 Aveland Court Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 September 2022.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.