CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Plume Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, and risks were assessed and managed. Inspectors also found suitable arrangements for staffing, medicines, safeguarding, equipment and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet complex needs. People were supported with healthcare, food and drink, decision-making and activities in line with their needs and preferences.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, compassionate and respectful. People were supported to communicate, make choices, maintain relationships and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and support plans were detailed, personal and up to date. People were supported with activities, work, education, community access and holidays, although end-of-life wishes were still being added to plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager had oversight of the home, and staff felt supported. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to monitor quality and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life wishes still being added to care plans.
This was a planned inspection on 30 September 2019. One inspector reviewed records, spoke with staff and one person, observed care and contacted two relatives afterwards. The inspection covered the care provided and the home itself.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and/or complex physical health needs. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
Care plans were detailed and staff understood people's communication and health needs. Medicines, staffing, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were found to be suitable. The home worked well with health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating in every area as at the previous inspection published on 7 January 2017.
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about people's needs, preferences and communication. Staff adapted support as people's needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed and offered staff practical advice.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and compassion. Staff supported privacy, dignity, relationships and independence.
“Staff showed kindness, empathy and compassion.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, take part in activities and access the community. One person travelled independently to work.
“This person had their own key to the service.” from the report
Safe care
Risks were identified and managed, medicines were handled safely, and staff had safeguarding and infection-control training.
“People continued to be safe and protected from avoidable harm.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with healthcare and social care professionals, with advice and actions recorded in care plans.
“People benefited from good multi-disciplinary working.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorNo one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. The management team said they were still putting people's end-of-life wishes into care plans.
“They were in the process of putting in place details of people's end of life wishes in their care plans.” from the report
- 01How are my relative's end-of-life wishes recorded and reviewed now?
- 02How would staff support my relative's particular communication needs and help them make day-to-day choices?
- 03How do you support people to remain independent in the community, including work, education and leisure activities?
- 04How are medicines stored and administered if my relative wants privacy in their room?
- 05How would you involve our family in reviews, concerns or changes in my relative's care?
This was a planned inspection of the care provided and the home environment, covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a minor fire safety record shortfall corrected shortly afterwards.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 December 2016 by one inspector. The inspector observed care, looked around the home, reviewed three care plans and records, and spoke with the manager, staff, a person using the service and relatives.
The inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management and suitable risk assessments. People were treated with dignity, involved in their care and supported to make choices, develop daily living skills and take part in activities.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found one shortfall because personal emergency evacuation plans were not in place on the inspection day. The manager confirmed shortly afterwards that these had been implemented.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were calm, patient and considerate. They respected privacy and took time to understand people's communication and choices.
“We observed staff being friendly, patient, and discreet when providing care for people.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received a wide range of training and understood the needs and communication methods of the people they supported.
“We observed that staff members were knowledgeable about the people who lived in the service” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences and needs. People could choose when to get up, go to bed, spend time in different areas and take part in activities.
“We found that care plans were personalised to the individual and gave clear details about each person's specific needs and how they liked to be supported.” from the report
Good community links
People were supported to take part in a range of social and community activities, including college, swimming, bowling and church services.
“We found that people were able to take part in a range of activities.” from the report
Strong management and monitoring
The home had clear responsibilities, a positive staff culture and regular checks on the quality of care.
“The service was well led and had a framework that assured the quality of the service.” from the report
Evacuation plans
needs fixingPersonal emergency evacuation plans were missing on the day of inspection. The manager confirmed shortly afterwards that they had been put in place.
“personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) were not in place for people who used the service.” from the report
- 01Are each person's personal emergency evacuation plans now in place, reviewed and available to staff?
- 02How do you review care plans when a person's condition or needs change?
- 03How do you make sure medicines continue to be administered and recorded safely?
- 04What training and supervision will staff caring for my relative receive?
- 05How will my relative be supported to choose activities and maintain links with family and the local community?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, interviews and a review of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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 Plume Avenue
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 July 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.