CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 74 Wilson Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe recruitment, enough staff on the inspection days, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines management. Staff understood safeguarding and infection control procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, supervision and skills needed to support people. The previous shortfall in buccal midazolam training had been addressed, and people had access to food and health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with patience, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices, maintain relationships and take part in everyday tasks and activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal to each person and regularly reviewed. People were supported with their routines, interests, communication needs, cultural wishes and access to the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, clear responsibilities and quality checks. Feedback from people and relatives was sought, and action was taken when checks identified improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an announced comprehensive inspection on 1 and 2 August 2018. The inspector observed care, spoke with staff, relatives and health professionals, and checked care records, staff files, training, medicines, complaints and safety checks.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, infection control and risk assessments were managed safely.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement because staff had completed the previously missing training for emergency medicine.
Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns and no breaches of regulations were reported. The home had systems to listen to people and relatives, check the quality of care and act when improvements were needed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate warmly and patiently. People appeared comfortable and at ease with staff.
“Staff approached people with friendliness and spoke about them with warmth and affection.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's communication, emotional and daily support needs. Care plans were based on individual preferences and reviewed as needs changed.
“Support plans had been developed which set out how to support people in a personalised way, based around the needs of individuals.” from the report
Safety and medicines
Risk assessments gave staff guidance to reduce risks, and medicines records were up to date. Staff had completed the training needed to give emergency medicine safely.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to follow their interests, go out and maintain important relationships. This included activities such as cinemas, restaurants, shopping and garden centres.
“People attended a variety of activities and spent time in the local community.” from the report
Improved staff training
The home addressed the training gap identified at the previous inspection. All staff had completed buccal midazolam training, including new staff.
“At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the rating has improved to good.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingStaff said the home often used agency workers to cover sickness and holidays and that they would like more permanent staff. Managers said they were recruiting.
“Staff we spoke with said they could do with more permanent staff as the service often used agency staff to cover staff sickness and holidays.” from the report
Accessible information still being reviewed
minorThe home was reviewing the formats used to provide information in easy-read or pictorial form. A pictorial menu was also still being developed.
“The regional director informed us that the organisation was in the process of reviewing the formats in which information was provided to people” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff now work at the home, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02Has the pictorial menu been completed, and how do people choose their meals?
- 03How do you make sure information is available in a format each person can understand?
- 04How are emergency medicines such as buccal midazolam kept safe, and how often are staff competencies checked?
- 05How are changes in people's health, behaviour or support needs recorded and shared with all staff?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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.
Every inspection of 74 Wilson Avenue
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.