CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Avon Reach
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were suitable. This included PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing, admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a rating or detailed findings for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a rating or detailed findings for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a rating or detailed findings for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a rating or detailed findings for Well-led.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were suitable.
Inspectors made an unannounced, targeted visit on 6 November 2020. They checked infection prevention and control arrangements during the coronavirus outbreak.
The home was caring for 37 people and could accommodate up to 60. Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, shielding, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
The report also describes activities for people self-isolating in their rooms, including personalised items, extra one-to-one time and daily outdoor walks. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infection, including safe use of PPE and access to testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Support during self-isolation
Staff prepared personalised activities and arranged extra individual time and outdoor walks for people isolating in their rooms.
“Staff had created a box of items to help entertain people when they were self-isolating in their rooms.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently preventing visitors from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How do you support people who need to self-isolate in their rooms?
- 03How often are people using the personalised activities and receiving one-to-one time described in the report?
- 04How are people using the service and staff currently accessing testing?
- 05How do you manage an infection outbreak if one occurs?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 2020 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and effective management, with a few medicines and record-keeping issues to address.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 8 January 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and medicines records, checked staff files and audits, and observed care and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and described staff as kind. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, clean surroundings, personalised care plans, suitable activities and good access to health care.
Inspectors did find some issues. One person missed a blood-thinning medicine, guidance was missing for one medicine given when needed, and hearing aids were not being cleaned. Some records did not clearly show who was involved in certain decisions, and one care plan had not been updated after a change in health needs. These matters were acted on during the inspection or through the home's improvement systems.
Kind relationships
People and families described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed friendly, respectful interactions and people being involved in everyday decisions.
“We observed a relaxed and friendly rapport between people and the staff team.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's individual needs, choices, cultural and spiritual preferences, and end of life wishes. People and families were involved in care reviews.
“Care plans reflected people's diversity and included information about how a person's cultural and spiritual needs were met.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, trips and opportunities for people to use their skills. Community links gave people more opportunities outside the home.
“Activities were available seven days a week and included group activities, one to one activities and trips into the local community.” from the report
Good management
Staff described good communication and teamwork. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to identify and make improvements.
“Audits were completed monthly including infection control, nutrition, infections and medicines.” from the report
Missed medicine
seriousOne person did not receive a prescribed blood-thinning medicine. The manager sought medical advice and said the cause would be investigated.
“However, one person had not received their blood thinning medicine as prescribed.” from the report
Missing medicine guidance
seriousThere was no plan or guidance for staff about giving one medicine that had been prescribed for use when needed.
“There was not a plan or guidance in place to direct staff in the administration of the medicine.” from the report
Hearing aid care
needs fixingStaff were not cleaning people's hearing aids because they had not received training or the necessary materials. Training material and a cleaning kit were obtained during the inspection.
“We found that care staff were not cleaning them.” from the report
Decision records
needs fixingSome best-interest records did not clearly identify the people and professionals involved in making decisions.
“However, it was not always clear who was involved in making the decision” from the report
Care plan update
needs fixingOne care plan had not been changed after the person experienced two different infectious conditions. A new care plan was put in place during the inspection.
“We found the care plan had not been changed to reflect this.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent another missed dose of a blood-thinning medicine?
- 02How do you make sure staff have written guidance for every medicine given when needed?
- 03How are hearing aids and other personal equipment cleaned and maintained now?
- 04How do you make sure care plans are updated promptly when someone's health needs change?
- 05How do records show exactly who was involved in best-interest decisions?
This was an inspection of the overall service and all five CQC areas, including the building and the care provided; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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 Avon Reach
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.