CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Avonfield Neurological Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk assessments and safe medicines administration. Infection prevention arrangements were also judged effective.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some capacity assessments were incomplete or not up to date, with insufficient detail about decisions people could not make. The home was reassessing people's needs and had an action plan, but progress had not always been prompt.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and caring, and inspectors found that people's privacy, dignity and choices were respected. People and relatives were involved in care discussions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, histories and relationships. People were offered activities, communication support and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff described the home as well run and approachable. Audits, meetings and a quality improvement plan were used to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Pathfields Lodge was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but capacity assessments were not always complete or up to date.
Inspectors visited without warning on 25 October 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and managers. They also reviewed records, care plans, medicines systems, staffing and infection control.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines support, kind care, personalised activities and approachable management. People were generally treated with dignity and their needs were met.
The Effective rating was Requires Improvement. Some people did not have full and current assessments of their mental capacity, and many were still incomplete when inspectors visited. The home had an action plan to address this. Some unused parts of the building also needed refurbishment.
Enough trained staff
People's needs were met promptly. Staff were safely recruited, trained and supported, and call bell response times were checked.
“There were enough staff on site to ensure people's needs were promptly met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly interactions and found that staff respected people's privacy, dignity, individuality and choices.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and personal histories. Staff knew how people liked to be supported and activities were provided.
“People received care that was personalised to them.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said managers were approachable and supportive. The home used audits, meetings and an improvement plan.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Incomplete capacity assessments
needs fixingSome people did not have comprehensive, current assessments explaining which decisions they could not make. The home had identified the problem, but many assessments remained incomplete at the inspection.
“Some people who could not make all decisions for themselves, did not have a comprehensive or up to date assessment of their capacity” from the report
Unfinished refurbishment
minorSome parts of the building were not being used and needed refurbishment. A plan was in place, but the work was not complete.
“Some areas of the building were not fully in use, and required refurbishment.” from the report
- 01How many capacity assessments were incomplete at the inspection, and how many have now been completed?
- 02How do you check that each decision made for a person who lacks capacity is properly recorded and in their best interests?
- 03What is the timetable for refurbishing the parts of the building that were not in use?
- 04How do you check staffing levels and call bell response times on each shift?
- 05What progress has been made against the home's quality improvement plan since this inspection?
This unannounced inspection looked at all five key questions, included infection prevention and control checks, and was prompted partly by concerns about staffing and documentation. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 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.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were being managed safely.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
The home had 29 people living there, with places for up to 48. Inspectors found measures for visitors, including testing, temperature checks and personal protective equipment. Staff and visiting professionals were asked for evidence of COVID-19 vaccination unless exempt.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, managing admissions, testing, social distancing, cleaning and visits in line with current guidance. The home also used staff zones and had a COVID-19 champion to share and implement updated guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas inspectors usually consider.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak arrangements were being managed appropriately.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors had testing, temperature checks and PPE, and inspectors were assured that visits followed current guidance.
“We were assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Vaccination checks
The home checked vaccination evidence for staff and visiting professionals, allowing for exemptions and emergencies.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Staff support
Staff who had COVID-19 were contacted about their wellbeing and had return-to-work discussions, including whether they needed reasonable adjustments.
“All staff who had COVID-19 were regularly contacted by management to ensure their wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are currently in place?
- 02How are visits managed now, including testing, PPE and any limits on visiting?
- 03How does the home manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 04How are people admitted safely and protected from infection?
- 05When were the other areas of care, such as caring, responsive and well-led, last fully assessed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 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 Avonfield Neurological Centre
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Avonfield Neurological Centre →
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Avonfield Neurological Centre →
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.