CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elliot Avenue
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control measures during the targeted visit.
The inspection took place on 7 April 2021. It was announced in advance and focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found regular infection control training, correct use of protective equipment, cleaning of frequently touched surfaces and arrangements to reduce the spread of infection. They were also assured about visitor checks, testing, social distancing and safe admissions.
The home could support up to six people and four people were living there at the time. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full overall quality rating.
Infection control training
Staff had regular training and used protective equipment correctly. This supported safer infection control practices.
“Staff had regular and effective infection prevention and control (IPC) training.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
The home had checks and cleaning arrangements for frequently touched areas, the building and vehicles.
“Audits of IPC practice ensured the cleaning and disinfection programme was effective with attention to detail” from the report
Managing infection risks
The home used separate staff groups for people who needed to isolate and had arrangements for safe returns from healthcare appointments.
“There were enough staff who could work in separate groups known as a cohort.” from the report
Keeping in touch
Staff supported safe visits and offered other ways for people to stay in contact with relatives and friends.
“Other means of staying in touch with relatives and friends included, visiting relatives at home, frequent telephone calls, social media and e-mails.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 7 April 2021?
- 02How do you now manage visitors, including health checks and infection risks?
- 03How do you arrange testing and protective equipment for people and staff?
- 04How would you safely support someone returning from a healthcare appointment?
- 05How do you keep the home and vehicles clean, including frequently touched surfaces?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other quality areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 2021 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, November 2019
Elliot Avenue was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but management and records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 23 September 2019. They spoke with people using the service, staff, relatives and professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People were found to be safe and treated with kindness. Staff supported choice, independence, communication, health, food and activities well. Medicines were managed safely and the home was clean.
The main weakness was leadership and record keeping. Some risk plans and best interest decisions were not recorded properly. Complaints and incidents were not always logged or analysed. The overall rating stayed Good, but Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff provide kind, caring support and develop positive relationships with people.
“We observed people received support which was kind and caring. Staff developed positive relationships with people and knew how to support them effectively.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, try new experiences and develop their skills.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely, and staff had training and checks for this work.
“People's medicines were managed safely and were stored and administered in line with good practice standards. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Communication support
Staff used different methods to help people express their wishes when verbal communication was limited.
“This included writing down questions, photographs, communication devices and specialist autism communication tools.” from the report
Important risk information was missing
seriousSome management plans were not detailed enough. Inspectors found no risk assessment for a person who had previously expressed suicidal thoughts, and limited guidance for supporting heightened anxiety.
“For example, there was no risk assessment in place for a person who had previously expressed suicidal thoughts.” from the report
Best interest decisions were not always recorded
needs fixingThe home understood the need to make decisions in people's best interests, but records did not always explain the options, views and reasons behind decisions.
“The rationale for important decisions was not always documented.” from the report
Incidents and complaints were not fully tracked
needs fixingIncidents were not analysed for patterns and trends, and some complaints had not been logged even though action was being taken.
“Incidents and Accidents were not analysed to identify patterns and trends. Complaints were not always logged.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingAgency staff were sometimes used to cover vacancies. Relatives and professionals said this could be difficult for some people, although regular agency staff were used where possible.
“Agency staff were sometimes used to cover staffing vacancies.” from the report
- 01What risk assessments and management plans have you added or improved since this inspection, especially for anxiety and suicidal thoughts?
- 02How do you now record best interest decisions, including the options considered, people's wishes and the reasons for the decision?
- 03How are incidents analysed for patterns, and how are complaints recorded and followed up?
- 04How many staffing vacancies do you currently have, and how often are agency staff used?
- 05Have key worker meetings, staff meetings and regular supervision now been reinstated?
This was a planned, announced inspection of all five CQC questions, covering the care provided and the premises, with records reviewed before and after the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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 Elliot Avenue
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Peterborough
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 £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.