CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 35-37 Portland Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were managed, people were protected from abuse, medicines were handled safely and there were enough staff. Some bathroom maintenance issues affected infection control, but action was taken during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective management, good oversight and a positive, person-centred culture. People, relatives and staff were involved in developing the service.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, with some bathroom maintenance issues and staff vacancies.
The inspection took place on 9, 15 and 24 November 2022. Inspectors visited the home, returned without notice, spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, and checked care and safety records.
The home supports up to four people with learning disabilities and autistic people. All four places were occupied. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by staff who knew them well, and helped to make choices and take part in activities.
The home was rated Good overall. This inspection looked at Safe and Well-led only. Both were rated Good. The other three areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support for activities and visits. Staff knew people well and understood their communication needs.
“There were enough staff on duty, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices and live with as much freedom and control as possible. Staff used the least restrictive approach.
“People, including those unable to make decisions for themselves, had as much freedom, choice and control over their lives as possible because staff managed risks to minimise restrictions.” from the report
Supportive culture
The inspection found a caring and empowering atmosphere. Staff supported people to achieve personal goals and take part in their local communities.
“The registered manager and senior staff worked hard to create a culture of care which promoted people's individuality, protected their rights and enabled them to develop and flourish.” from the report
Medicines support
Staff assessed the help each person needed with medicines and reviewed the effects on their health and wellbeing. Support aimed to promote independence.
“Staff followed effective processes to assess and provide the support people needed to take their medicines safely.” from the report
Bathroom maintenance
minorInspectors found rust on a bathroom radiator and warped bathroom flooring. The home took action during the inspection, but inspectors were only somewhat assured about safety through the premises' layout and hygiene practices.
“For example, there was rust on the bottom of a bathroom radiator and bathroom flooring was warped.” from the report
Vacant staff posts
minorThe home was recruiting for vacant posts. Inspectors found enough staff at the time, but existing staff worked extra hours to maintain support.
“The service was recruiting for new staff and had some vacant posts.” from the report
- 01Have all the bathroom maintenance issues, including the radiator rust and warped flooring, now been fully repaired?
- 02How many staff posts are currently vacant, and how often do existing staff work extra hours?
- 03How will you make sure people continue to receive one-to-one support for activities and visits while recruitment continues?
- 04How do staff support each person's independence when helping with medicines?
- 05How are relatives involved in six-monthly reviews and decisions about changes to the service?
This was a planned inspection that looked at Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 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, December 2017
Education and Services for People with Autism Limited - 35-37 Portland Avenue was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 21 November 2017. The inspection was announced. They reviewed care records, staff records, training, medicines, quality checks and the home itself. They spoke with one person, two family members, the manager and staff.
The home supported up to four people and three people lived there at the time. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments and trained staff. People were supported with their health, food, communication, independence and activities.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the inspection in October 2015, so this rating remained unchanged.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on duty, suitable recruitment checks and safe arrangements for storing and administering medicines.
“We found appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and home. Staff supported people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's wishes, communication methods, health needs, goals and activities.
“Care plans were written in a person-centred way.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People had individual activity timetables and took part in a wide range of activities, including trips, hobbies and holidays.
“We found the provider protected people from social isolation. People had personalised activities timetables in place.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider carried out regular checks, gathered views through surveys and followed up identified actions.
“The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place.” from the report
End of life wishes
minorEnd of life care had not been discussed with people at the time of the inspection because it might distress them. The manager said families would be involved at the appropriate time.
“However, it would be discussed and families would be involved at the appropriate time.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff when someone is absent?
- 02How will you support my relative to communicate choices, including through symbols, pictures or timetables if needed?
- 03How do you review whether activities continue to match each person's interests and goals?
- 04How and when would you discuss my relative's end of life wishes, and how would the family be involved?
- 05How are medicines checked between the regular audits and stock checks?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and the care provided to the three people living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2017 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 35-37 Portland Avenue
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.