CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aveley Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable safeguarding arrangements and medicines being given as prescribed. However, records of some injuries and incidents did not always show the investigation or follow-up action.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and support to meet people's needs. People received suitable food and drink, healthcare support and care that followed mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions, supported to remain independent and helped to maintain relationships with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. Activities were varied and personalised, and staff responded when people's needs changed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a visible, person-centred management approach and good communication. The provider had introduced external auditing and other meetings to identify and act on improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, but incident records needed to improve.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 and 20 July 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a volunteer. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable training, good access to healthcare and respectful relationships. People were supported with food, activities, independence, communication and end of life wishes.
There was one important weakness in how risks were recorded. Records about unexplained bruising, skin tears and some incidents did not always show what had been investigated or what action had been taken. The manager changed the incident form during the inspection and said incidents would receive further checks.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed staff asking permission, protecting privacy and supporting people's choices.
“Staff were kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people who used the service.” from the report
Medicines improved
The previous inspection found medicines were not always given as prescribed. This inspection found people received their medicines safely and when needed.
“At this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities reflected people's interests and wishes. The home used groups, gardening, music, technology and links with the community to support wellbeing.
“People had access to activities that were important to them.” from the report
Incident records were incomplete
seriousRecords did not always explain what action had been taken after falls or other incidents. Unexplained bruising and skin tears were sometimes recorded only on body maps, without showing whether they had been investigated or reported.
“Where unexplained bruising or skin tears had occurred, no incident report was completed, just a body map.” from the report
Care plans were being redesigned
needs fixingThe current care records contained the information staff needed, but the provider was redesigning them to make them shorter and easier to use. Families should check that any changes in their relative's needs are reflected promptly.
“The registered manager told us they were in the process of redesigning the care plans to make them more concise and easier for staff to use.” from the report
- 01How has the revised incident form changed the way falls, bruising and skin tears are recorded and investigated?
- 02How will you make sure any unexplained injuries are reported to the local authority safeguarding team when needed?
- 03How often are incidents reviewed by the management team, and can families see what action followed an incident?
- 04How are care plans being redesigned, and how will you make sure important details about my relative are not lost?
- 05What has changed since the July 2018 inspection, particularly in medicines, staffing and risk monitoring?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but medicines, liberty safeguards and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 September 2016. Inspectors observed care, looked around the home, reviewed four care plans and records, and spoke with people, staff, relatives and a district nurse.
The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. People were treated with dignity, staff knew their preferences, and care plans and activities were personalised. People had enough to eat and drink and could access healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and also for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that some medicines were not given correctly. They also found that applications had not always been made when people were being deprived of their liberty. The home had identified some medicine errors, but its checks had not led to enough action to prevent them happening again.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated warmly and respectfully. Staff knew people well and gave them time to respond and make choices.
“Staff interactions with people were considerate and the atmosphere within the service was welcoming, relaxed, and calm.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, interests and life history. Staff could explain how each person preferred to be supported.
“Plans were well-written and provided clear instructions for staff to follow.” from the report
Activities and social life
People were offered varied activities and were supported to continue their interests and stay connected with family and friends.
“Organised activities were offered to people, which provided a wide and varied activities programme.” from the report
Staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff, timely responses to call bells and regular assessments of risks such as falls, poor nutrition and skin damage.
“Throughout the inspection, we observed call bells being responded to in a timely way.” from the report
Medicine errors
seriousSome people did not receive medicines in the correct way. Audits had found repeated errors, but the home had not taken enough action to reduce the risk of this happening again.
“Medicines were not always given to people in the correct way.” from the report
Liberty safeguards
seriousApplications had not always been made to the local authority when required for people whose liberty was being restricted. The report says these referrals were made shortly after the inspection.
“We found the registered manager had not made appropriate DoLS referrals when this was required.” from the report
Weaknesses in quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits did not identify every area that needed improvement. This included the missing liberty safeguard applications.
“The governance process in place had failed to spot that applications to deprive people of their liberty had not always been submitted to the local authority.” from the report
Limited awareness of care plan reviews
minorMost people spoken with could not recall whether they had a care plan or had taken part in a review, although inspectors found the records were regularly reviewed.
“With the exception of two, none of the people we spoke with could recall if they had a care plan or had been involved with a review of their care needs.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent medicines being missed or given incorrectly?
- 02How are medicine errors now reviewed, recorded and followed up?
- 03Have all required liberty safeguard applications been made, and how are their review dates monitored?
- 04How does the home check that its audits identify problems across all parts of the service?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in care plan reviews and meetings?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 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 Aveley Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 August 2012.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.