CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fletton Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention and control arrangements, including PPE, cleaning, visitors, social distancing and outbreak planning. They were only somewhat assured about testing because additional staff tests were not always completed in line with guidance or the provider's policies.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Fletton Avenue was inspected but not rated; infection control was mostly reassuring, but staff testing did not fully follow guidance or the provider's policy.
This was a targeted inspection on 10 March 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The visit was announced in advance.
Inspectors were assured about shielding, social distancing, admissions, visitors, PPE, cleaning, the layout of the home and managing possible outbreaks. They also found that people received information in an alternative format to help them understand the pandemic and PPE.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about testing for people and staff. Staff had regular COVID-19 testing, but some additional lateral flow tests were not completed in line with guidance or the provider's policies. The provider said it would make this change immediately.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for the home.
Visitor controls
Visitors had to book in advance, take checks and wear full PPE. They were taken directly to people's rooms to reduce contact with others.
“Visitors to the service had to pre-book, were time limited and they were escorted directly to people's room to avoid contact with others.” from the report
PPE and hygiene
Staff understood hand hygiene and used PPE correctly. The home had enough PPE and disposed of it safely.
“Staff had enough stocks and supplies of PPE and disposed of this safely.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans to isolate people if needed and to use a dedicated staff team for people in isolation.
“People could be isolated if needed and systems were in place to provide a dedicated staff team who would only care for people in isolation.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found regular cleaning of frequently touched items, weekly deep cleaning and premises that were clean, free of odours and uncluttered.
“Audits and governance were effective in ensuring the premises were clean, odour and clutter free.” from the report
Staff testing records and arrangements
needs fixingSome additional lateral flow tests for staff were not completed in line with guidance or the provider's policies. The provider said it would implement the change immediately.
“Although they had regular testing for COVID-19, rapid result testing known as lateral flow tests for staff, additional tests were not completed in accordance with the guidance or provider's policies.” from the report
- 01What changes were made immediately to ensure all required staff lateral flow tests are completed?
- 02How do you check and record that staff testing follows current guidance and the provider's policy?
- 03How would you isolate a person if needed, and would a dedicated staff team care for them?
- 04How are people given information about infection control and PPE in a format they can understand?
- 05How often are frequently touched items cleaned and deep cleans carried out?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a full rating of the home or assess all five areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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
Fletton Avenue was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, although the Responsive rating fell from Outstanding to Good.
This was a planned inspection on 8 October 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with five people living there and four staff members, and reviewed one person's care records and service records.
The home supports up to six people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean and well maintained. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were supported to make choices and become more independent.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of the inspection. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, although Responsive fell from Outstanding to Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People had good relationships with staff and felt comfortable with them. Inspectors found a warm atmosphere and respectful care.
“There was a warm, friendly atmosphere in the service and staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to do more for themselves. They took part in activities, work and community life.
“The trust developed between people and staff helped promote people's independence, confidence and helped them achieve positive outcomes.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests and goals. Staff supported people to try new things, travel, work and maintain relationships.
“People continued to receive opportunities to participate in a wide range of social, recreational and pastoral activities.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed and checked regularly. Staff said there were enough people available to support planned activities.
“Staff managed medicines safely and gave people their medicines as the prescriber intended.” from the report
End-of-life plans were not in place
minorNo one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. People had chosen not to discuss the subject, and the manager said it would continue to be explored.
“End-of-life plans were not in place as people had chosen not to discuss the matter when asked.” from the report
Responsive rating fell
minorThe Responsive rating changed from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good. The report still found that people's needs were met and their care was person-centred.
“At this inspection this key question has deteriorated to good.” from the report
- 01How will you involve my relative in creating and reviewing their support plan?
- 02What activities, work opportunities and community involvement could you offer based on my relative's interests?
- 03How would you support my relative to become more independent while managing identified risks?
- 04How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines safely?
- 05How would you approach end-of-life discussions and planning if my relative wanted to talk about this?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says the previous overall rating was Good while Responsive was previously Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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 Fletton Avenue
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
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.