CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Avondale Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. However, some healthcare risks and medicines records were not fully documented, although the manager said corrective action had been taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this focused inspection, although people and relatives gave positive comments about staff and care.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This key question was not rated in this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Quality checks had improved and were being used to identify lessons and drive improvement. People, relatives and staff were generally positive about the management team.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safer care and better management, but some health-risk and medicines records still needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 11, 13 and 26 January 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, the provider and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and Well-led was rated Good. People and relatives generally said people were safe and well cared for. There were enough staff during the inspection, medicines were available, infection controls were mostly effective and staff knew how to report concerns.
Inspectors still found some gaps. Risks linked to conditions such as diabetes and catheters were not always recorded in enough detail. Some medicines records were incomplete. Cleaning records did not cover all communal areas or show periodic deep cleaning. The manager said corrective action had been taken after the inspection.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in March 2022. The provider had been in breach of Regulations 12 and 17, but inspectors found enough improvement for the home to be no longer in breach and to be rated Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they had no concerns about safety. Staff understood different types of abuse and how to report concerns.
“People told us they were safe and had no concerns about their safety whilst living at Avondale Rest Home.” from the report
Enough staff during the visit
Inspectors found staff deployment was appropriate and that people's needs were met in a timely way. Recruitment checks were also mostly completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and to respond to people in a timely way.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home's quality checks were being used to monitor care, identify patterns and learn from incidents. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“The quality assurance arrangements monitored the experience of people being supported.” from the report
Positive relationships
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the care and the management team. Staff were described as approachable and available for support.
“People and their relatives were positive about the care provided at the service.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors found the home clean and odour free, with effective use of protective equipment and enough supplies. Visiting was flexible and without restrictions imposed by the home.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Health risks not fully recorded
needs fixingRisk assessments did not always explain the risks linked to conditions such as diabetes and catheters. Inspectors recommended that the provider make risk assessments more robust.
“Additional information was still required detailing the specific risks associated with the above conditions.” from the report
Cleaning records did not cover everything
needs fixingCleaning schedules were completed but did not include communal areas or show periodic deep cleaning. The manager said this was corrected after the inspection.
“These did not include communal areas of the service or evidence periodic deep cleaning.” from the report
Some relatives had staffing concerns
minorAlthough inspectors found enough staff during the visit, some relatives felt staffing could be low at times.
“Staffing levels seem a bit low at times although I think they have improved lately.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and review the specific risks linked to diabetes, catheters and other healthcare conditions?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure every medicine administration record is completed correctly?
- 03How do you record the application of transdermal patches and manage 'when required' medicines?
- 04How often are communal areas deep cleaned, and where can I see the completed records?
- 05What staffing levels will be in place for my relative, including at times when relatives previously felt staffing was low?
This was a focused follow-up inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key questions were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 2023 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 2022
Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found Inadequate leadership, unsafe risk and infection controls, and warning notices were issued.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 14 January 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe remained Requires Improvement, while Well-led fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. Inspectors found poor oversight, incomplete risk information and infection control practices that did not always follow government guidance.
There were also positive findings. People said they felt safe, staff had good relationships with them, medicines were generally given as prescribed, and staffing levels were enough. The report says there was no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but people were at potential risk because important systems were not reliable.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and enjoyed living in the home. Staff interactions were described as relaxed and comfortable.
“People told us they were safe and enjoyed living at Avondale Rest Home.” from the report
Kind staff relationships
Inspectors observed that staff had good relationships and rapport with the people they supported.
“Observations demonstrated staff had a good relationship and rapport with the people they supported.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were appropriate and staff responded to people in a timely way. Recruitment checks were also carried out before staff started.
“The deployment of staff was appropriate and there were enough staff to meet people's needs, with staff responding to people in a timely way.” from the report
Medicines mostly managed well
The medicines records checked were in good order and showed that people received medicines as prescribed. Staff had recent medicines training and competency checks.
“These were in good order, provided an account of medicines used and demonstrated people were given their medicines as specified by the prescriber.” from the report
Fire safety improved
The report says improvements identified at the previous inspection had been made. Staff had taken part in fire drills and emergency plans were accurate and personalised.
“Staff had received updated fire training and Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans [PEEPs] were now accurate and person-centred.” from the report
Infection control failures
seriousThree people admitted after hospital had not isolated as required. The home could not show reliable records of testing, cleaning checks or COVID-19 vaccination status for all relevant staff and visitors.
“Three people admitted to the service between September 2021 and December 2021 had not isolated in line with government guidance either in their room, or a specific designated area.” from the report
Risks were not recorded properly
seriousCare plans did not always reflect people's changing needs. Inspectors found missing information about moving and handling, pressure ulcers, skin tears, catheters and pandemic-related risks.
“Although there was no impact for people using the service, not all risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and recorded or provided enough detail as to how identified risks should be mitigated.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe home's audits and improvement plans did not identify or accurately report important problems. Actions promised after the previous inspection had not been completed as stated.
“The provider's arrangements for assessing and checking the quality and safety of the service had failed to identify the concerns found as part of this inspection.” from the report
People's needs not fully assessed
seriousAssessments did not properly consider the risks of admitting people safely, including people who could not settle or isolate. The role and impact of essential care givers had also not been assessed.
“Arrangements were not in place to ensure people's needs were fully assessed.” from the report
Visiting arrangements lacked individual plans
needs fixingAfter a COVID-19 outbreak, relatives' visits were stopped. Individual risk assessments and visiting plans had not been completed in line with the home's own policy.
“Individual risk assessment and visiting plans had not been completed in line with the provider's own visiting policy and procedure.” from the report
One medicine storage problem
minorOne person's over-the-counter medicine was easy for others to access. It was removed and stored safely after inspectors raised the issue.
“We found one person's 'over the counter' medication was not stored correctly and was easily accessible to others.” from the report
- 01How have you updated every person's risk assessment and care plan, including moving and handling, pressure ulcers, skin tears and catheter care?
- 02How do you now record hospital admissions, isolation, testing and COVID-19 vaccination status for residents, staff and visiting professionals?
- 03What checks now make sure your audits identify problems rather than reporting improvements that have not happened?
- 04How are visits arranged and individually risk assessed after an infection outbreak?
- 05What induction and record checks are completed for agency staff before they work in the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, following targeted concerns; the other three key questions were not inspected and no ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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 Avondale Rest Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 September 2016.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.