Averley Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service under the new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had a person-centred plan and individualised structured timetable. The registered manager told us these were used as a guide to enable people to make choices. However, people were not taking part in some of these activities, such as clubs, sports and exercises as per their timetables. We were told this was due to staffing and funding levels and that meetings were taking place to discuss these limitations.

One person told us about a recent trip to London they went on with staff to see a music show. Both the person and the staff member involved described how much they enjoyed the event. Relatives told us they had been invited to a music therapy session at the service. They said they very much appreciated being invited and seeing their family members engagement in the activity. One relative told us, “They absolutely love music.” During the site visit some people went on a trip out whilst others remained in their home.

We observed that people were treated individually and staff adjusted their communication styles to speak with people. A relative told us, “One of the nice things is that there is a core number of staff who have been there a long time. They them well.”

People were supported to maintain relationships with their families and people who were important to them. Relatives said they could visit the service at any time and were always made to feel welcome.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service made referrals to health professionals as appropriate. This included occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapist.

Any changes to people’s health or care needs with shared with staff at daily handover meetings. Staff or family members accompanied people to medical appointments to help advocate on their behalf.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities to ensure people with a disability, or sensory loss received information in a way they could understand it and support with their communication.People’s communication needs had been assessed and were detailed in their care and support records. This included if people communicated in other ways such as using signs or gestures. During the assessment one person signed and staff understood this was their way of indicating they wanted a cup of tea and went to make one for them.

Aspects of people’s care was provided in a way people could understand. There were pictures in people’s care records to help them understand their content. Picture cards were available to aid people to choose activities.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Relatives told us they were involved in their family member’s care. They said they enjoyed being invited to social events such as the Christmas party. Relatives told us staff communicated with them about any changes or concerns and that they were invited to care review meetings. In March 2026, survey questionnaires had been sent to family members to gain their views about the quality of care. The results received to date were positive. Relatives had responded that staff were caring, worked well together, they knew the manager and how to raise a concern.

The provider had a process to investigate and respond to any concerns or complaints. Relatives said they felt confident to raise any concerns about their family member’s care. A relative told us, “If I have a concern I speak to the deputy manager or manager. If I have any worries then I only need pick up the phone and if they cannot sort it immediately, they get back to me.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were no barriers to people with a learning disability or autism being referred or admitted to the service. There was a clear admissions criteria and people’s needs were assessed before moving into the service. People would not be admitted if the provider had assessed staff did not have the appropriate skills to provide safe care to an individual.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff were made aware of the provider’s equality and diversity policy at induction. Leaders and staff were aware that discrimination and inequality could disadvantage people using the service. They took action were needed and advocated for people as needed.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The registered manager told us that they were reviewing people’s goals to ensure the goals set would help improve their quality of life. said these were in development with people.

People and their family members had been consulted about how they wanted to be supported at the end of their lives. Where people or family members had chosen not to have a discussion at this point in time, this had been recorded.