CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Avondale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements in activities and responsiveness.
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home on 25 November 2019. One inspector spoke with relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safe recruitment, suitable staffing, well-managed medicines and regularly reviewed risk plans.
Care plans were detailed and tailored to people's communication, choices and needs. People were supported with health care, activities, relationships and community life. The report says activities and personalised care had improved since the previous inspection.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in 2017. Responsive care has improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors identified one area for future development around recording people's wishes for end of life care.
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication methods and the support they could manage independently. Staff used pictorial and easy-read information where needed.
“Care and support plans were detailed, contained people's preferences and were developed in a pictorial format.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were safely stored, administered and reviewed. The home was also working to reduce the use of medicines for behaviours where alternatives were suitable.
“Medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. There were safe processes in place for the overall management of medicines.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported with activities, outings, holidays, relationships and community networks. Inspectors were told this had improved since the new manager took up the post.
“People enjoyed a variety of activities, outings, holidays and community social networks. This had improved since the last inspection.” from the report
Strong partnership working
The home worked closely with health and social care professionals to adapt support when people's needs changed.
“The registered manager had very good relationships with health and social care professionals.” from the report
End of life wishes
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection, and the home had not fully explored people's or their representatives' wishes for future end of life care.
“The service had not fully explored people's (or their representatives) preferences or wishes for end of life care.” from the report
- 01How will you record and regularly review my relative's wishes for end of life care?
- 02How would staff communicate with my relative if they use signs, pictures, objects or non-verbal communication?
- 03How would you support my relative if they became distressed, frustrated or anxious?
- 04What activities, outings and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative's specific diet, food consistency and health needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous overall rating was Good, published on 21 April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 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, April 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but activities and stimulation needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 14 and 15 February 2017. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and leadership. Medicines, safeguarding, risk assessments, staff training and health care arrangements were found to be managed well. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs and preferences.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being responsive. Relatives said people did not always have enough activities, interaction or stimulation, especially at weekends. The manager had plans to improve activities, including daily living tasks, social activities and possible hydrotherapy.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection in February 2015. This means inspectors found the main areas of care to be good, but the activities shortfall is an important issue to discuss before choosing the home.
Safe medicines and risk planning
Inspectors found medicines were administered safely and that risks such as choking, mobility and community access had been assessed. Staff understood the guidance in people's care records.
“The storage, ordering and disposal of medicines was managed effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff supported people with choices, independence, privacy and dignity. Inspectors observed warm and reassuring interactions.
“We observed caring interactions from staff towards the people they were supporting.” from the report
Good health and food support
People were supported to maintain a healthy weight and to access health professionals when their needs changed. Relatives spoke positively about the quality and variety of food.
“People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care services.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines, communication needs and goals. People were involved in decisions about their care where possible.
“People were supported to contribute to decisions about their care and were involved wherever possible.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular audits and action plans to identify and address shortfalls. A system for keeping staff supervision records up to date had been improved.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Not enough meaningful activities
needs fixingSome people were not always supported with varied or meaningful activities. Relatives reported limited interaction, stimulation and weekend activities, and inspectors saw an example where little interaction was offered.
“People were not always fully supported to take part in meaningful activities.” from the report
Staff turnover
minorRelatives and staff reported a high turnover of staff in recent months. Agency staff were being used to cover shortfalls, although the same regular agency staff were used where possible.
“People's relatives and staff told us in recent months there had been a high turnover of staff.” from the report
Family communication
minorSome relatives wanted more regular updates about their family member's progress and important changes in health.
“There have been times when communication has been good but overall, lines of communication could be improved.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available each day, including at weekends, and how do you make sure they are meaningful for my relative?
- 02How many staff are usually on duty, and how often are agency staff used?
- 03How will you tell me promptly about important changes in my relative's health?
- 04How do you record whether my relative has taken part in activities, outings or daily living tasks?
- 05How are my relative's communication needs and personal preferences kept up to date in their care plan?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Avondale
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.