CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Avon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and clear improvements, but some medicine supplies had been delayed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 8 June 2021. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and care staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff recruitment files and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, staff were safely recruited and infection controls were in place. They also found kind staff, suitable food and drink, access to healthcare and better management systems.
There had been delays in getting some medicines. The manager knew about this and was taking action. Training for staff on modified diets had not yet been arranged, although an external caterer supplied a safe pureed diet for one person in the meantime.
The previous inspection, published in 2019, rated the home Requires Improvement and found several breaches. Inspectors said enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach. This inspection only looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led, so some other ratings were carried forward from the earlier comprehensive inspection.
Kind and available staff
Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and responding promptly when support was needed.
“People told us of the kindness of staff to them and how they always had time to chat; we saw this in practice.” from the report
Improved management
The home had introduced a clearer system for tracking improvements, reviewing care plans and sharing information about incidents and people who were unwell.
“An action plan, including a RAG rating, monitored the service delivery and was effective in identifying areas for improvement within stipulated timeframes.” from the report
Safer medicines systems
The home had corrected several problems found at the previous inspection. Medicine opening dates, as-required instructions, errors and stock levels were being recorded.
“A check of medicines showed that the date they were opened had been recorded. A protocol for medicines to be taken as required (PRN) had been completed and was implemented.” from the report
Support with food and healthcare
People could choose what to eat and drink, had drinks available, and were supported to access healthcare professionals. Nutrition and hydration were monitored where needed.
“People had sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a healthy lifestyle. People told us they were happy with the meals on offer and that they could choose what they would like to eat.” from the report
Delayed medicines
needs fixingThere had been miscommunication about the availability of medicines for some people. The manager was taking steps to resolve the problem, but families should ask what changed and whether delays have stopped.
“There had been miscommunication relating to the availability of medicines for some people.” from the report
Modified-diet training
needs fixingTraining for the chef and other staff on modified diets had not been arranged successfully. An external caterer provided the correct pureed meals for one person while this was unresolved.
“The registered manager told us they were endeavouring to organise training for the chef and other staff in relation to modified diets, but had not been successful.” from the report
Power of attorney decision
needs fixingInspectors found one example where a relative made a health decision despite only having legal authority over property and finances. The manager agreed this needed to be addressed.
“We found in one instance that a relative had made a decision about a person's health, when they only had legal authority for making decisions in relation to property and finances.” from the report
- 01Have all delays in obtaining medicines been resolved, and how do you now check that people have their medicines when needed?
- 02What training have the chef and care staff completed on modified diets and swallowing difficulties?
- 03How do you check that decisions about a person's health are made by someone with the correct legal authority?
- 04Which ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection rather than checked during this visit?
- 05How do you use your action plan and daily meetings to make sure identified problems are completed on time?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 August 2021 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found effective infection control during a coronavirus outbreak, with some pressure on staffing.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 15 February 2021 after concerns were raised about infection control during a coronavirus outbreak. This was a targeted inspection, not a full review of the home.
They found the home was managing infection risks well. Staff used protective equipment safely, people and staff had regular COVID-19 tests, cleaning was increased and the outbreak plan had been followed.
People were isolated in their rooms during the outbreak. Staff supported them with personal care, reassurance and video calls with relatives and friends.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or ratings for care quality areas beyond the infection control checks described.
Infection control
Inspectors found that the home had effective arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Support during isolation
Staff provided personal care and reassurance to people who were isolated in their rooms. Video calls helped people stay in touch with relatives and friends.
“People were isolated in their rooms during the outbreak and were supported by care staff with personal care; staff also reassured people who were anxious and distressed.” from the report
Staff support
Staff had access to support from managers, a staff survey and an external counselling service.
“Staff described being very well supported by the management team.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had a contingency plan for an outbreak and inspectors found that it had been followed.
“A contingency plan had been drawn up which described the actions to be taken in the event of an outbreak; this had been followed.” from the report
Staffing pressure
minorThe outbreak affected staffing because some staff were unwell or isolating. The home used block-booked agency staff to help maintain staffing levels.
“The number of staff who were unwell or who were isolating had an impact on staffing levels at the home.” from the report
- 01How are staffing levels maintained when staff are unwell or isolating?
- 02How are agency staff introduced to residents and supported to follow the home's infection control procedures?
- 03How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 04How are residents supported if they need to isolate in their rooms?
- 05How are relatives kept in contact with residents during an outbreak?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the wider quality areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 2021 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 Avon House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.