CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 1a Webb Road
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- There were not always enough suitably qualified staff, and some risks were not clearly assessed or supported by up-to-date guidance. Medicines and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supervision, followed people's dietary needs, and worked with health and social care professionals. Consent and best-interest arrangements followed the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw people treated with care, consideration, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices and understood non-verbal communication.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People did not always receive their planned community activities or support to follow their own interests. Care plans did not always accurately reflect current needs, wishes or goals.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider had audits and action plans, but these did not identify or resolve all problems promptly. Records were not consistently accurate, and people were not clearly involved in the running of the home.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Avenues London - 1a Webb Road was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good health support, but staffing, risk records, activities and management checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 12 and 17 January 2023. They observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked care plans, risk assessments, records, training and audits.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported healthcare needs, nutrition, medicines and infection control well. Staff also understood consent and people's communication needs.
However, there were not always enough suitably qualified staff. Some risks were not clearly assessed, care records were out of date, and people did not always receive the community activities or support to build independence described in their plans.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The five ratings were Good for Effective and Caring, and Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. The provider was asked for an action plan and will be monitored.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared at ease with staff, and relatives generally said people were happy and well treated. Staff respected privacy and dignity.
“People received care from staff who treated them with care and consideration.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and medicines were stored, administered and checked through audits.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff followed safe systems to administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Good health support
Staff worked with health professionals, supported appointments and included health advice in care plans. Hospital passports were available when needed.
“Staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to support people's health needs.” from the report
Relevant staff training
Staff received training linked to people's needs, including learning disabilities, epilepsy and autism. New staff had an induction and shadowed experienced staff.
“Staff received specific training on learning disabilities, epilepsy and autism to ensure they had specific training related to people's needs at the service.” from the report
Not enough staff at times
seriousStaffing did not always meet people's needs. Inspectors saw a person wait for help to eat, and staff were sometimes occupied with domestic work rather than supporting people.
“There were not always enough suitably qualified staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Risk information was incomplete
seriousSome risks, including falls, were not clearly assessed with guidance for staff. Bathrooms and toilets did not have call bells until a temporary measure was put in place during the inspection.
“Risks to people were not always clearly assessed or identified and up to date plans were not always in place to reduce risk.” from the report
Limited activities and independence
needs fixingPeople were not always supported to attend activities they chose or take part in their community. Records did not show enough support to build everyday skills or achieve personal goals.
“People were not always regularly supported to attend activities such as football or a local club of their choice.” from the report
Care plans and records needed updating
needs fixingSome care plans did not accurately reflect current needs, wishes or goals. Records were incomplete or split between paper and electronic systems, making oversight difficult.
“Accurate records of people's care were not consistently maintained.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAction plans did not always identify problems or show that actions were completed promptly. The new manager was also sharing time between two services during the inspection.
“Systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not always effectively operated.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels, and how do they reflect each person's current needs, including community activities?
- 02Have all risk assessments, including falls risks, been updated, and how are staff shown what action to take?
- 03How does the home now make sure each person follows their own interests and attends activities in the community?
- 04How are people involved in running the home and how are their views recorded and acted on?
- 05What actions from the CQC report have been completed, and how are care records and audits checked now?
This unannounced inspection assessed all five CQC questions, included infection control checks, and involved observations, discussions with staff and relatives, and reviews of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Avenues London - 1a Webb Road was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some food safety and medicines actions noted.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 6 August 2019. The inspector met all six residents, observed care and activities, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from known risks, medicines were generally managed safely, and there were enough trained staff.
The report describes respectful relationships and care planned around each person. Residents were supported with communication, food, health appointments, activities, independence and community access. The home was clean and adapted to people's needs.
The rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in January 2017. The report also noted a lower food hygiene rating from a separate March 2019 visit and one medicines record needing pharmacist agreement.
Kind relationships
Staff knew residents well and built positive, respectful relationships. Inspectors saw calm and caring support during everyday activities.
“During our inspection we observed staff interacted well with people and had built positive respectful relationships with them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, communication needs and goals. Relatives were involved in assessments and reviews.
“People's care was carefully planned and personalised, and staff supported people to have choice and control.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, take positive risks and access activities and community services. The home had its own transport to help with this.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff with the skills and experience needed. Staff received induction, supervision and training in relevant areas.
“Staff were knowledgeable and had the skills and experience to meet people's needs appropriately.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider and managers carried out audits and used action plans to address issues. Staff also discussed people's needs and lessons learned in handovers and meetings.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to make any improvements if required.” from the report
Food hygiene rating fell
needs fixingA separate Food Standards Agency visit in March 2019 gave the service a rating of two, down from three. The home had an action plan and had introduced daily kitchen and fridge/freezer checks, so families should ask about the current position.
“The Food Standards Agency visited the service in March 2019 and rated them two which was a decline from their previous rating of three.” from the report
Pharmacist agreement needed
needs fixingInspectors found the covert medicines process was being followed, but one record still needed agreement from a pharmacist. A meeting had been arranged to review the agreement.
“one record required the agreement from a pharmacist.” from the report
- 01What is the current Food Standards Agency food hygiene rating, and what actions were completed after the March 2019 rating of two?
- 02Has the pharmacist agreement for the covert medicines record now been obtained and reviewed?
- 03How will you learn what a resident wants if they cannot communicate their views verbally?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan, risks and communication passport be reviewed?
- 05Which activities and community services could my relative take part in, and how would transport be arranged?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the previous overall and question ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 2019 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 1a Webb Road
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2014.
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 Greenwich
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.