CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Flaxman Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines safely and there were enough staff to meet their needs. However, some risk assessments were too general and did not always show how individual risks would be reduced.
- Effective?
- Good
- Support plans reflected people's needs, choices and preferences, and staff worked with relatives and professionals. Some staff had not completed training relevant to the people they supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as caring, patient and attentive. People were treated with dignity and respect and supported to communicate and make choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and activities were personalised. Staff used people's preferred communication methods and worked closely with relatives during stays and transitions.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive culture, but management systems were inconsistent. Some records were out of date, audits did not always identify problems and formal team meetings had not taken place regularly.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but leadership and governance required improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. One inspector visited on 25 October 2023 and inspection activity continued until 27 October. The inspector observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care files, medicines records and management documents.
People were supported to make choices and be as independent as possible. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, enough staff to meet people's needs, kind and respectful care, personalised support and good communication with relatives.
The main weaknesses were in leadership and record-keeping. Some risk assessments did not reflect individual risks, some staff training was incomplete, and some records and audits were not up to date or effective. The CQC rated the home Good overall, with Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive rated Good, but Well-led rated Requires Improvement.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, have control over their lives and develop their independence. Staff used the least restrictive approach and followed best-interest processes where needed.
“People were supported in a service which promoted choice, control and independence.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed. The home had systems for recording medicines entering and leaving the service.
“Medicines were administered safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and built trusting relationships. People were treated with dignity, privacy and respect.
“Staff were passionate about the people they supported. Staff were caring, patient and attentive.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff understood how people communicated and used suitable approaches, including visual cards. Support plans explained people's choices and communication needs.
“People's communication needs were met. Staff knew how people communicated and were observed responding to people appropriately.” from the report
Risk records were too general
needs fixingMost risk assessments did not always reflect people's specific needs or explain the controls needed to reduce risks. The CQC recommended a review of the risk assessment process.
“However, most risks assessments were generalised and did not always consider the individual's specific needs or show control measures to reduce these particular risks.” from the report
Some training was incomplete
needs fixingInspectors found that staff had not always completed training relevant to the people they supported. Team leaders managed the skill mix on shifts.
“However, we identified staff had not always completed training relevant to the needs of the people they supported.” from the report
Weaknesses in governance and records
needs fixingSome agency induction records and parts of people's files contained out-of-date information. Audits had not identified every issue, and the CQC recommended improving governance systems.
“Effective governance systems were not always in place. Not all documentation relating to the management of the service had been updated or reviewed.” from the report
- 01How have you updated individual risk assessments so they clearly describe each person's current risks and control measures?
- 02Which staff training relevant to people's needs was incomplete at the inspection, and has it now been completed?
- 03How do you check that care files, agency induction records and other documents contain current information?
- 04What changes have you made to audits so they identify errors and confusing records?
- 05How will you provide regular team meetings and formal staff support while you recruit permanent staff?
This was the first comprehensive inspection since the home registered, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 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.
Every inspection of Flaxman Avenue
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2022.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of York
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 £1,270 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.