During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Avens Limited is a care home providing accommodation and personal care and support for up to 14 people. There were 14 people using the service at the time of the assessment.
Who the service is for
The service supports adults with a learning disability, physical disability and associated health needs who require accommodation and personal care. Support was tailored to individual needs and focuses on promoting safety, independence, choice and control whilst ensuring people remain safe and receive appropriate healthcare support.
The service uses a household model of care. People live in small groups that share a kitchen, lounge and dining area. This helps create a familiar home environment where staff can support people in a more personal and flexible way.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 24 and 25 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
The service worked in line with the principles of right support, right care and right culture. People had choice and control, with care focused on independence and quality of life.
A positive learning culture was evident. Staff understood the process of recording accidents and incidents, including escalating concerns to leaders. Learning from incidents and events was shared through handovers, communication records, team meetings and supervisions.
People received safe, effective care that met their needs. Risks were assessed and managed to promote their safety
People received person-led care and support based on comprehensive assessments of their health, wellbeing, communication, and support needs. Care plans gave staff clear guidance to support each person’s safety, independence and choices. One person said, “I've been here a long time. My care is planned around what I need and want to do, and staff know that.” Care plans were produced in formats suitable for individual to understand.
Where people were able they, were actively involved in planning and reviewing their care, with involvement of those important to them. A relative told us, “[Person name] always gets involved and have choices. We all have a meeting every two months.’’
Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to support people’s wellbeing and respond promptly to changes in their needs or health. People’s health needs were clearly documented, regularly reviewed, and monitored through care reviews, ongoing health checks, and management oversight.
The service continued to demonstrate appropriate safeguarding arrangements. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and there were clear processes for reporting and responding to concerns. We observed staff supporting people individually and safely offering reassurance and guidance where needed. Records relating to safeguarding concerns showed effective management oversight, involvement of relevant professionals and support provided to people and staff.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. We observed warm and relaxed interactions. Staff offered meaningful choices and gave people time to respond, supporting them to express preferences about their daily life.
Care was delivered in a way that promoted people’s independence, dignity and emotional wellbeing, with evidence of positive outcomes. People’s health and wellbeing were monitored, with appropriate escalation to professionals when concerns were identified.
People were encouraged and supported to express their views and be actively involved in their care, with communication tailored to their individual needs. For example, one person with communication difficulties following a stroke was supported to use a combination of their own speech and an assistive communication device, enabling them to express their needs and preferences more effectively.
Medicines were managed safely by staff who were trained and assessed as competent. We observed staff supported people with their medicine at the right time and in the right way. One person said, “I get my medicines without fail every morning.” Medicines were stored securely, with clear protocols in place for the administration of prescribed 'as required' pain relief. Although some recording inconsistencies were identified, leaders took prompt action to strengthen oversight and monitoring. There was no evidence of harm to people.
Staff were recruited safely. Staff completed essential and role-specific training, and their competence was assessed to carry out their roles safely and effectively, this included the safe administration of medication. One staff member told us, “Staff were recruited safely and received a broad range of training to support them in their roles.” Staffing arrangements remained consistent and flexible, with sufficient staff available to meet people's needs and support community access and social activities
Staff demonstrated a caring, compassionate and empathetic approach towards the people they supported. They spoke warmly and respectfully about people and showed a good understanding of their individual needs, preferences and communication styles and aspirations. One staff member described their role as, “To support and encourage people every day to have happy, enriched and meaningful lives.”
The service environment was clean, well maintained, and equipped with suitable adaptations to meet people’s needs. A relative told us, “We regular visits and turn up unannounced, it’s clean, we have a good relationship with them, we got an air condition unit put in.” The provider continued to invest in the service through planned refurbishment and bedroom redecoration. Regular audits demonstrated effective oversight of the environment, health and safety, and service quality. Where issues were identified, prompt action was taken, including fitting window restrictors and repairs carried out.
Relatives told us communication was good and that they were kept informed about significant events affecting their family members. They felt involved in reviews and decisions about care, supporting a person-centred approach.
Effective governance systems remained in place. Audits, oversight processes and management monitoring demonstrated a continued focus on safety, quality and continuous improvement. Leaders were responsive to feedback, strengthening the oversight and monitoring. Overall, the evidence showed the service had sustained its Good rating through effective leadership, safe systems, knowledgeable staff and a continued commitment to delivering high-quality care.