CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Avenue Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning. They found visiting arrangements and isolation times were not in line with the latest guidance at the time, but the home said it would make changes.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, but visiting arrangements and isolation times needed changing.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 February 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found the home was clean and tidy. Staff used personal protective equipment safely, cleaning was recorded and checked, and there were enough supplies. The home had an up-to-date infection control policy and plans for managing an outbreak.
Inspectors found that visitors were restricted to one area and had to socially distance, which did not match current government guidance. The home was also isolating new or COVID-positive people for 14 days instead of the 10 days in the latest guidance. The manager said these issues would be corrected immediately, and later confirmed that visiting arrangements had changed.
Clean home
The home was clean and tidy. Cleaning was recorded and checked by the management team.
“The home was clean and tidy, staff followed cleaning rotas.” from the report
Infection control
Staff used PPE safely, had received relevant training and the home had enough PPE supplies.
“There were enough stocks of PPE in the home. Staff had received training from the local authority on donning and doffing and infection, prevention and control.” from the report
Family communication
Staff kept in regular contact with families and worked with other professionals, including GP surgeries.
“The registered manager and staff communicated regularly with family of people living in the home.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had an up-to-date infection control policy and the manager understood how to separate people safely during an outbreak.
“The registered manager had a good understanding of zoning and cohorting which was followed in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
needs fixingVisitors were limited to one area and had to socially distance from residents. Inspectors said this did not follow the latest government guidance, although the home later confirmed it had changed the arrangements.
“Although the home was allowing visitors, people were restricted to one area of the home and had to socially distance from their visitors which was not in line with the most recent government guidance.” from the report
Isolation period
needs fixingThe home was using a 14-day isolation period for people arriving or testing positive, rather than the 10 days stated in the latest guidance. The manager said this would change immediately.
“The registered manager told us they isolate people for 14 days which is not in line with the latest government guidance which states people should be isolated for 10 days.” from the report
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and can visitors spend time in residents’ rooms or other areas of the home?
- 02How does the home now decide how long someone must isolate after admission or a positive COVID-19 test?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how are the cleaning records checked?
- 04What arrangements are in place if COVID-19 causes staff shortages?
- 05How are families kept informed if there is an infection outbreak or changes to visiting?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four CQC question areas and gave no overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 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, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-organised care, but medicines records, care plans and recruitment checks were not always complete.
The inspection took place without notice over three days. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. There were enough staff, activities were well planned, food was well received and people were supported to access health care. Staff understood people's preferences and supported choice, dignity and independence.
Inspectors found some weaknesses. Employment histories did not cover a full work history, some care plans lacked important detail and several medicines records had gaps. The manager acted straight away on these issues, and the report says the provider was no longer breaching regulations.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was an improvement from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, when there had been two breaches of regulation.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and people said staff had time to support them. Regular agency staff helped provide consistency when permanent staff were unavailable.
“There were enough staff to support people safely and to ensure people's needs could be met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and considerate. Inspectors observed care that respected people's dignity, choices and personal preferences.
“We observed staff interactions with people which showed they were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered activities inside and outside the home, including arts and crafts, music, visits from animals and contact with local groups. Activities were adapted when people showed interest.
“We observed a 'knit and natter' group during the inspection which usually took place on a Tuesday; however, it had proved so popular it now also took place on other days at people's request.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The previous rating was Requires Improvement and there were two regulatory breaches. Inspectors found enough improvement for the breaches to end, including better premises maintenance and stronger quality checks.
“At this inspection we found enough improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Management systems
Audits covered areas such as medicines, care plans, infection control and safety. The home used action plans to track improvements.
“There was a clear action plan in place to address concerns found in audits and this evidenced continuous improvement.” from the report
Recruitment records
seriousStaff employment histories covered only the previous 10 years and some dates were incomplete. This meant the manager might not identify gaps relevant to whether someone was suitable to work there.
“Staff were not always recruited safely, most of the appropriate checks were carried out to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not give enough precise information to guide staff. Inspectors found no evidence that people's safety had been affected, and the home was reviewing the plans.
“Some care plans and risk assessments did not always contain the detail required to make them robust.” from the report
Medicines recording
seriousSeveral September 2019 medicines records had gaps. Inspectors established that the medicines had been given but not signed for, and the manager increased checks from monthly to weekly.
“However, we did find several gaps in the medication administration records (MAR) for the month of September 2019 which had not been picked up.” from the report
Sharing feedback
minorFeedback had been collected from people but had not yet been shared with them at the time of the inspection. The manager said a board was planned to show what people said and what had been done.
“At the time of the inspection this feedback had not been shared with people.” from the report
- 01How do you now check every applicant's full employment history, including all dates and any gaps?
- 02How are care plans and risk assessments checked to make sure they contain precise instructions for staff?
- 03What weekly checks are now used to make sure every medicine given is recorded correctly?
- 04Have you shared people's feedback with them, and can you show us what actions followed?
- 05What progress has been made with the redecoration and dementia-friendly improvements?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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 The Avenue Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2010.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.