CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Avon's House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk assessment, staffing, medicines and infection-control arrangements. Staff recruitment checks and medicines competency checks were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training and supervision. People had choices about food and were supported to access healthcare, although staff knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act was sometimes limited.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and access the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff promoted a positive, person-centred culture and worked with other organisations. However, some quality audits were not completed as regularly as the provider said they should be, and agreement about displaying appointment information was not recorded.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Avon's House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some quality checks and staff knowledge needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 29 August 2019 and followed up on 2 September. They spoke with people using the home, staff, relatives, the manager and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines, risks and management records.
People were positive about the care. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported independence. People were helped to communicate in their preferred ways, take part in activities and use community facilities.
The home had enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. People were supported with food, healthcare and complaints information. Inspectors also found some missed quality audits, limited staff knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and a lack of recorded agreement about personal appointments being displayed.
The home received Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first inspection since registration, so there was no previous rating to compare.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their care, activities, food and daily routines. Staff encouraged people to develop daily living skills and become more independent.
“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
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors found that staff knew people well and supported them in a relaxed and respectful way. People's privacy and dignity were maintained.
“People were supported with kindness, respect and compassion by a staff team who had gotten to know people as individuals.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities and to use community facilities. Staff respected people's choices about whether to join in.
“People were supported to take part in a wide array of community-based activities and to take part in daily living skills in the home.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely, including extra staff when needed for community activities. Medicines were administered safely, with staff training and checks.
“The manager ensured that there was always a 'float' staff member on shift.” from the report
Missed quality audits
needs fixingSome management audits had not been completed as regularly as the provider's own arrangements required. The manager said improvements would be made.
“The manager acknowledged that some of these audits had been missed recently and that they were going to make improvements to rectify this.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act knowledge
needs fixingStaff had received training, but inspectors found that their knowledge was sometimes limited. The manager planned refresher training and further discussion with staff.
“Staff received training in the MCA, however knowledge in this area was sometimes limited.” from the report
Appointment information
minorA board displayed people's personal appointments in an area visible to visitors and other people using the home. The home said this was people's choice, but that agreement had not been recorded.
“We asked the manager if this was people's choice and were told that it was, however this was not recorded.” from the report
Garden maintenance
minorThe manager recognised that the garden needed some maintenance and said the provider's maintenance team would deal with it.
“The manager acknowledged that the garden area needed some maintenance and told us that this would be dealt with by the provider's maintenance team.” from the report
- 01Have all the missed quality audits now been completed, and how often are these checks being carried out?
- 02What refresher training have staff received about the Mental Capacity Act, and how has their understanding been checked?
- 03How do you record people's agreement to have personal appointments displayed in the entrance corridor?
- 04Has the garden maintenance identified in the report been completed?
- 05Has the manager completed registration with the Care Quality Commission?
This was a planned first inspection covering all five questions, including the premises and care provided; the report says the service had not been inspected before. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 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's House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 September 2017.
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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.