CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Avocet House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staff managed risks, staffing and medicines safely overall. Inspectors found that checks for medicine patches and some medicine opening dates were not consistently recorded, but the manager acted to address this.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care plans reflected their choices and staff supported eating, drinking, independence and access to healthcare. Some care plans needed more detail about physical health conditions, and the manager said this had been addressed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors saw kind, respectful interactions, and people were involved in decisions about their care and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's routines, preferences, communication needs and interests. Activities were inclusive, people were supported to maintain relationships and hobbies, and complaints were investigated and resolved promptly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear leadership, regular meetings and systems to monitor quality and safety. The provider sought feedback and worked with healthcare professionals to support people.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good; Avocet House Care Home provided kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and medicine checks needing improvement.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. It was unannounced and took place on 04 October 2022 and 05 October 2022. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and enjoyed living there. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, personalised care, good activities, safe medicines practice and strong links with healthcare professionals.
Inspectors found some gaps in records and checks. One person's risk records had not been updated after action was taken to reduce falls. Daily checks of medicine patches were not being completed, some medicine containers did not have open dates recorded consistently, and some care plans needed more detail. The manager took action during or after the inspection.
Good means the home met the CQC's standards in all five areas inspected. It does not mean that every part of the service was perfect, so the specific improvements and the home's progress on them are important to ask about.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about how staff treated them. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity, asking permission and offering choices.
“People and their relatives consistently told us how they were happy with how staff treated them or their family members.” from the report
People felt safe
Safeguarding systems were in place and staff had training to recognise and report concerns. Risk assessments, safety checks and staffing arrangements generally supported people's safety.
“People were safeguarded from the risk of harm. Systems and processes were in place and followed by staff.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People could take part in activities, maintain hobbies and relationships, and attend religious services.
“People received individualised care and support based on their routines, preferences and what was important to them.” from the report
Good leadership and oversight
The home used meetings, audits and feedback to monitor the service and identify actions. Staff were able to share concerns and suggestions.
“There was clear leadership and oversight at the service. Robust systems and processes were in place to continually assess, monitor and review quality and safety.” from the report
Risk records not always updated
needs fixingOne person's records did not reflect actions taken to reduce the risk of falls. Staff knew the person's needs, and the manager updated the risk assessment during the inspection.
“However, records for one person had not been updated to reflect this.” from the report
Medicine patch checks
needs fixingDaily checks were not being recorded to confirm that medicine patches were still in place. The manager introduced a daily check after the inspection.
“However, daily checks were not completed to ensure patch medicines were still in situ and had not fallen off or been accidentally removed.” from the report
Medicine records and care plan detail
minorSome bottles, creams and eye drops did not consistently have their opening dates recorded, although checks found they were not expired. Some care plans also needed more detail about physical health conditions.
“However, there were some inconsistencies with recording open dates on bottles, creams and eye drops, but checks confirmed these items had not passed their expiry date.” from the report
Training still being completed
minorThe staff training record showed that 93% of training had been completed. The provider had arranged dates for the remaining training.
“The staff training matrix showed 93% of training had been completed by all staff.” from the report
- 01What daily checks are now used to confirm that medicine patches remain in place?
- 02How do you check that opening dates are recorded on bottles, creams and eye drops?
- 03How quickly are risk assessments and care plans updated when a person's needs or risks change?
- 04What training remained outstanding after the inspection, and has it now been completed?
- 05How are people's activities and religious, social and personal interests included in their care plans?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; no previous ratings were available. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 2022 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 Avocet House Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 2021.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.