St Matthews Limited - The Avenue

Updated 1 August 2025

Date of assessment: 8 January 2026 – 30 January 2026.

We started the assessment on 8 January 2026 and visited the service on 8 January 2026, 9 January 2026, and 28 January 2026. We reviewed documents and had follow up contact with the provider, finishing the assessment on 30 January 2026.

We carried out a comprehensive assessment of the service. Our last assessment for this service was published in January 2022 under our previous methodology, and we rated the service Good. At this assessment, the service had remained Good.

St Matthews Limited – The Avenue is a nursing home providing accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 32 people. At the time of our assessment 32 people were living at the service. A registered manager was in post. The registered manager is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and is legally responsible for ensuring the service is compliant with legal and regulatory requirements.

Staff completed safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns. The provider did not always assess and manage risks and some improvements were required to the environment and medicines administration. We found there was enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs, although we recommended the provider reviewed their dependency tool. Care plans provided staff with adequate detail to meet people’s needs. We found staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs.

The service was well-led. Staff spoke positively about changes implemented over the last 12 months, describing how these had strengthened the culture of the organisation and created a more supportive and engaging working environment. Leaders, including the Director of Operations, Chief Operating Officer, Managing Director and Chair, visited the home regularly, which helped ensure the visibility and accessibility of leadership. The Chief Operating Officer’s approach motivated staff to deliver the best possible care and we saw this reflected in the confidence of staff during our assessment.

Feedback about the registered manager from staff, people and their relatives was generally positive. Staff told us, “[Manager] is supportive and approachable. You feel you are being listened too and [manager] wants the best of us and the residents.” A relative told us, “Yes – I know the manager, [they] are always available for a chat or to ask advice.” Other relatives told us, “I have met the manager I think [manager] is doing a good job,” and “It seems very well run, the staff seem happy which is encouraging.” We observed the registered manager knew people well and was able to describe people’s needs.

Although there was a need to strengthen some governance processes, and implement improvements, we were assured work was underway before the assessment concluded.

Updated 1 August 2025

People were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. However, our observations and the feedback we received was mixed in relation to some of people’s experience of living at the home.

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used our short observational framework for assessment (SOFI) to observe people’s experience of the care they received. Our observations found staff were kind, caring and compassionate throughout our assessment although we noted engagement with people and the mealtime experience required some improvement.

People spoke positively about the care and support they received. A person told us, “I think they are very good and caring, empathetic, nothing is too much trouble.” Another person told us, “They are really caring, they help me with everything I need.”

Relatives generally spoke positively about the service. A relative told us, “This place puts me at ease. Knowing [relative] is here and is being looked after is a weight off my mind.” Other relatives told us, “I’m very happy with the carers they are lovely,” “I’m very happy with the staff they do a good job,” and, “The staff are good and caring.” One relative who visited the home regularly told us, “Staff are helpful, they care, they have empathy and nothing is too much trouble”.

Staff demonstrated they understood people’s needs and supported them in ways that treated them as an individual. For example, a staff member told us, “[person] prefers to be in their bedroom. We understand that.” The person told us, “Yes - I prefer to stay in bed in my room. I’m nice and cosy in my room.”

People and relatives told us they felt treated as individuals. A person told us, “I like to have a shower every day, they know it is important to me so they make sure I can do this every day.” A relative told us, “They always use [relatives} name, they are interested in him.”

Feedback from people and their relatives, and our observations in relation to promoting choice and control were mixed. A person told us, “I’d give the staff 9/10 they do a brilliant job.” Another person told us, “‘I shower myself I’m quite independent.” However, we also received feedback that people didn’t always feel they were given control over everyday decisions. For example, a person told us, “I don’t really get asked what I want, they just do it for me.”
 

There was an activities timetable, including music therapy, pampering sessions, karaoke, and pet therapy. The provider also utilised an external activities worker twice per week to carryout armchair exercises. We generally received positive feedback in relation to activities. A relative told us, “[Relative] chooses which activities to do. [Relative] likes the variety of animals and the guinea pigs. There seems enough going on.” Another relative told us, “They have a good schedule of activities.”