CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Royal Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, testing, personal protective equipment and managing COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted that the manager carried out audits and checks on staff practice.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, cleaning and visiting arrangements at Royal Avenue.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 3 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected the service.
The home screened visitors with temperature checks, lateral flow tests and a questionnaire. It was clean, had regular cleaning of touch points, and had new fixtures, flooring and bathroom facilities that were easier to clean.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, followed visiting guidance and kept its infection control policy up to date. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a full quality rating.
Visitor screening
Visitors were screened using temperature checks, lateral flow tests and a questionnaire about additional risk factors.
“There was a process in place to screen visitors for COVID-19.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and had processes for regularly cleaning touch points. Refurbishment had provided fixtures and facilities that were easier to clean.
“The service was clean and there were processes in place to ensure regular cleaning of touch points.” from the report
Infection control leadership
The manager led staff practice on reducing the spread of COVID-19 and used audits and checks to identify improvements.
“The manager took the lead in ensuring staff followed the procedures they had in place to reduce the risk of the spread of COVID-19.” from the report
Support for visiting
People could have visitors and keep in touch with important people. A separate visiting area had a handwash sink and enhanced cleaning.
“People were enabled to have visitors and the service supported people to keep in touch with those important to them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened, and what arrangements are in place if someone has symptoms or a positive test?
- 02How do you currently manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and have these affected people using the home?
- 03How often are touch points and the visiting area cleaned, and who checks this?
- 04How are staff supported to follow infection prevention and control procedures now?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements for helping residents keep in touch with family and other important people?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 2022 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, September 2019
Royal Avenue was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care, but well-led was Requires Improvement because quality checks were not detailed or consistent enough.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 8 August 2019. One inspector spoke with five people, the manager and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety. Inspectors found enough trained staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practice, safeguarding arrangements and a clean environment. They also found that action was taken after accidents, although records of incidents could be improved.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Quality audits were brief, did not cover all areas in enough detail and did not consistently identify or follow up record-keeping problems. The overall rating stayed Good because the other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection and were not inspected this time.
Enough trained staff
People and staff said staffing levels were appropriate. Inspectors observed enough staff to support people when they needed help.
“This confirmed our observations that there were enough staff to support people when they required it.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were checked against administration records and matched. Staff administering medicines had training and their competence was assessed.
“Medicines were managed, monitored and administered safely. We reviewed the stock of medicines and compared this against the records of administration.” from the report
People felt safe and cared for
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were kind to them. Safeguarding procedures and training were in place.
“People told us they felt safe living in the service.” from the report
Quality checks were not strong enough
needs fixingAudits were brief and did not cover all areas of the service in enough detail. Record-keeping problems were found repeatedly, but the home had not completed audits for June and July.
“Whilst there was an audit in place, this was brief and did not cover all area's of service provision in sufficient detail.” from the report
Accident records needed improvement
needs fixingAccidents were recorded, but there was no system to audit accidents, incidents and their causes. Inspectors said the manager still had oversight because they were present most days.
“However, record keeping in this area could be improved to ensure the registered manager can have better oversight of incidents that occur.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the quality auditing system since the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that record-keeping problems have been corrected and do not return?
- 03How are accidents and incidents audited, including their causes and any action needed?
- 04What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the last comprehensive inspection?
- 05How do you review staffing levels when people's care, social or emotional needs change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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 Royal Avenue
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.