Avery Park Care Home

Updated 10 April 2025

Date of Assessment: 7 May to 18 August 2025.

Avery Park Care Home is a care home with nursing. This location is dual registered. Dual registration is when a provider has stated, and is able to evidence, that at least two providers are both responsible for managing the regulated activities at a single location. CQC consider both providers to be reliable and legally responsible for carrying out of the regulated activity irrespective of any specific arrangements between them. This means that any default or breach by one provider is the responsibility of both providers. The two providers responsible for the location are Willowbrook Healthcare Limited, and Artisan Care Kettering Limited. This report should be read in conjunction with the report for Avery Park Care Home (1-19885093127)

This assessment was prompted by information we held about this service. We carried out a comprehensive assessment and assessed a total of 33 quality statements.

At the time of our assessment there were 111 people using the service. As part of our assessment activity, we undertook an on-site visit on 7 and 14 May, and 19 June 2025.

This assessment was carried out by 4 inspectors, a regulatory coordinator and 4 Experts by Experience who have personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
During this assessment we spoke with people, and their relatives or advocates. We also spoke with staff including the registered manager, deputy manager, care and domestic staff, a qualified nurse, an activities coordinator and the clinical and quality lead for the provider.

People were safe and well supported by staff who had been recruited safely, received regular training, support and supervision. People were supported to be as independent as possible and positive risk taking was supported. The home was clean, odour free and well maintained. There was a positive, inclusive culture in the home where people and staff were encouraged to share ideas and raise concerns.

Staff and leaders understood their responsibilities in relation to regulatory requirements, current legislation and best practice. Leaders were open, transparent and keen to ensure continuous learning and improvement. However, some improvement was required in the oversight of the service to ensure concerns we found during our assessment would be identified internally in a timely manner going forward. Risk assessing, care planning and delivery of care was person centred and in line with the principles of the mental capacity act, but improvements were needed in how staff recorded care delivery for monitoring and evaluation purposes. Medicines were not always managed safely.

At our last assessment the service was rated good. At this assessment we found the service remained good.

Updated 10 April 2025

People told us they felt safe. Staff were described as kind and caring, however, some people said staff were better trained than others and they felt sometimes there were not enough staff. We found that the provider had newly recruited staff that were still in the process of getting to know people and learning their role. The provider had managed this safely by providing training and ensuring a mix of new and more experienced staff across the floors. People told us security at the home was good and that it was clean, tidy and well maintained. One person told us, “Security is good, you sign in and out plus there’s a buzzer.”

There was some mixed feedback on the food and while there was plenty of food, snacks and drinks available, not everyone liked the number of meals that were in a sauce. There were regular resident and relative meetings; people were encouraged to attend to share feedback., We saw these were not always well attended, however, there was also a suggestion box and surveys for people to share feedback. We saw evidence that feedback and complaints were listened to and actioned.

People told us they had access to healthcare professionals when they needed it and also other support such as a hairdresser and manicurist as they wished.
People were encouraged to join in with and were enjoying activities which were varied and inclusive. Some people liked to help and have jobs to do, this was supported.

People who needed emotional reassurance were well supported; staff had used technology such as face time for people to have contact with relatives for reassurance when needed or requested. There were reminders around the home for staff to ensure people could reach call bells if they needed staff. People we also reminded to keep their mobile phones with them to keep in contact with people outside of the home as they wished.

People were supported to be as independent as possible and were making their own choices, staff were respectful of this and accepted refusals of care when made. Although some people told us they weren’t involved in care planning, we were assured that people and their relatives had been involved in planning and evaluating care through conversation with staff, and these discussions had been used to plan care. We have asked the provider to reassure people and their relatives about how they are being involved.

Accidents and incidents such as falls were well managed and preventive measures put in place to reduce risk to people without restricting their freedom of movement. A relative told us about a fall, they said, “Staff reacted appropriately, [relative] went to hospital by ambulance to be checked out.” People enjoyed access to the community and went out with friends and relatives as they wished. There was an active community within the home for those that preferred to stay in.

The service was well maintained with pleasant furnishings, clean and odour free. One person said, “It’s like a 4 star hotel”. People were able to personalise their rooms with personal belongings such as pictures, ornaments and soft furnishings if they wished.