CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mount Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks had been assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely and staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. The home was clean and safety checks were completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and focused on people's needs, choices and independence. Staff received relevant training and supervision, and people were supported with healthcare, food and drink.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to have warm, familiar and respectful relationships with people. People were supported to make daily choices and to have privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and records were kept up to date when needs changed. People were supported to take part in activities and maintain family relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective quality checks and promoted person-centred care. An interim manager was running the home while the provider recruited to the manager's position.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Mount Avenue was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with an interim manager and a vacant staff post.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection on 9 April 2019. The inspector reviewed care records, medicines processes and other records, observed the home and spoke with managers, staff and a relative.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, received suitable support and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities in the local community. Staff knew people's needs well, medicines were managed safely and the home was clean and well maintained.
The service had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published in October 2016. The registered manager was no longer managing the home, so an interim manager was in place while the provider recruited.
Choice and independence
Support focused on helping people gain skills, make choices and become more independent. Pictures, photographs and activity boards helped people communicate their choices.
“People were supported to make decisions about their support and staff ensured people were provided with 'choice' on a day to day basis.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff treating people with warmth, kindness and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported contact with family members.
“Staff displayed positive, warm and familiar relationships and were seen to be genuinely kind and compassionate.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Individual risks were assessed and reviewed. Medicines records were completed properly, audits were carried out and trained staff administered medicines.
“Medicines continued to be managed safely by appropriately trained staff.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in regular activities based on their needs and preferences, including visits to family members and access to the local community.
“People were supported to access a range of activities in the community on a regular basis.” from the report
Effective oversight
Regular audits and checks were used to monitor the quality and safety of the home and identify improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
Vacant staff post
minorRegular agency staff were being used to cover a vacant post. Inspectors said staffing levels were appropriate, but families may want to check whether this remains the position.
“Regular agency staff were currently being used to cover a vacant post.” from the report
- 01Has the vacant staff post been filled, and how often are agency staff now used?
- 02Who is currently managing the home, and what support and oversight do they receive?
- 03How will you help my relative make daily choices if they communicate using pictures or photographs?
- 04What activities are available in the community, and how are they matched to my relative's preferences?
- 05How will you keep me informed if my relative's needs or care plan change?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; inspectors looked at two people's care files and spoke with one relative. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines were not always administered in line with national guidance.
This was an announced inspection on 22 September 2016. One inspector reviewed records, watched staff support people and spoke with staff, a relative, a person receiving outreach support and healthcare professionals. There were three people living at the home.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, trained staff, personalised care plans, good healthcare support and activities based on people's preferences.
There was one medicines concern. Staff signed medicine records, and a second staff member witnessed this, before the medicines were given. This did not follow current national guidance. The home acted during and after the inspection by giving new instructions, arranging extra training and observing medicine administration.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and care plans recorded their preferences, communication needs and ways to reduce anxiety.
“Care plans were personalised and focused on people's support needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that staff treated people with dignity and respect.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and were responded to promptly when support was required.” from the report
Suitable staffing
Staffing levels and the mix of skills were judged suitable for people's needs. Staffing had been increased when complex behaviours created extra risks.
“We found staffing levels were suitable with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who lived at the home.” from the report
Good leadership and checks
The manager was present and approachable. Regular audits covered incidents, medicines, accidents and injuries.
“The registered manager had a comprehensive procedure to monitor the quality of the service being provided.” from the report
Medicine administration
needs fixingStaff signed the medicine administration record and had it witnessed before giving the medicine. Inspectors said this did not follow current NICE guidance and recommended that the process be reviewed with all staff.
“However, the provider did not follow current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine administration and recording since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines safely?
- 03How are people and their representatives involved in decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act?
- 04How do you make sure activities continue to reflect each person's choices and changing preferences?
- 05How are concerns, complaints and feedback from relatives recorded and acted on?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas and the overall rating for the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 2016 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 Mount Avenue
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 February 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.