CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Monro Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing, medicines, infection control and learning from incidents were all found to be well managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support based on assessments, best practice and advice from health professionals. Staff had tailored training and supported people's health, diet and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in decisions, and staff understood people's communication methods, preferences and needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with relationships, communication, activities, education, work opportunities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had motivated leadership, regular quality checks and a culture focused on person-centred care. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind, personalised care and strong management.
This was a planned inspection on 18 February 2020. One inspector visited, spoke with two people, two relatives and four staff, observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The inspectors found that people were safe. Risks and medicines were managed well, staffing met people's needs, and the home was clean. People received appropriate healthcare, food and support from trained staff.
Care was kind and personalised. People were supported to make choices, build independence, keep relationships, communicate in ways that suited them and take part in activities they enjoyed.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous rating was also Good, published on 22 August 2017.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing met people's needs and medicines were handled safely.
“People were safe, risks were assessed, monitored and well managed.” from the report
Skilled staff
Training was tailored to people's needs, including epilepsy and autism awareness. Staff received regular supervision and competency checks.
“The training was tailored to meet people's individual needs, the registered manager recognised the importance of on-going development of staff skills, competence and knowledge.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines, interests and communication methods. Staff knew people well and adapted support to them.
“People had personalised care plans which recorded how they wanted their care and support provided, their likes and dislikes, histories, daily routines, hobbies and interests.” from the report
Strong oversight
Managers carried out regular quality checks and used action plans when improvements were needed. Staff said they felt valued and listened to.
“Quality assurance checks were carried out regularly and action plans put in place where areas were identified for improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure staff continue to understand my relative's individual communication methods, including any signs, gestures or picture prompts?
- 02How are medicines reviewed and how will you tell the family about any changes or incidents?
- 03What activities, education or work opportunities would be available for my relative, and how would their choices be recorded?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan and making decisions about support?
- 05How can my relative raise a concern or complaint using accessible information and support?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 2020 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with good leadership and no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 July 2017. The inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They also checked care records, medicines, risk assessments, staff records and quality audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, personalised care plans and good access to health care.
People were supported to make choices, follow their interests and take part in activities in the community. Relatives and staff described an open service with strong leadership. The home had also been rated Good at the inspection in July 2015, so the overall rating remained Good.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that people were protected from harm and received their prescribed medicines safely. Staff had relevant safeguarding and medicines training.
“People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and needs. Care plans were developed with people and their relatives.
“The care plans were personalised to reflect people's likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in activities and follow their interests, including shopping, swimming, social clubs and visiting others.
“The service had their own transport and staff facilitated people to follow their interests, such as, attend social clubs, discos, swimming, day to day shopping, meals out and visiting friends and family.” from the report
Involved families
People and relatives were involved in care decisions, reviews and feedback about the service.
“The open and transparent culture in the service meant that people and their relatives were fully involved in making decisions about their care.” from the report
Leadership and improvement
Inspectors found an approachable management team and systems for checking care plans, medicines and the environment.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to help drive improvements and a number of quality audits had been carried out.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines safely?
- 02How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing and changing care plans?
- 03How do you support someone who cannot communicate verbally to show when they are upset or unwell?
- 04Which activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How are complaints recorded, answered and used to improve the service?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, medicines, staffing, training and quality monitoring; the previous inspection in July 2015 had also rated the service Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 August 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 Monro Avenue
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Milton Keynes
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 £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.