- Care home
Avebury House
Assessment report published 2 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 28th and 30st July 2026. Avebury House is a nursing home for up to 42 people. It provides care to adults of all ages, people with physical disabilities, dementia and people with mental health conditions. The provider was also providing residential and nursing care for three people with a learning disability. Two people primarily received nursing care, while one person was supported mainly with their learning disability needs. At the time of this assessment there were 39 people using this service. This inspection was carried out in response to the rating of requires improvement at the last inspection. At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. The provider did not know about this guidance but during the assessment, the registered manager began to read our guidance. We also found that of the three people with a learning disability, none were being supported in-line with CQC’s published best practice guidance. Some people who could not communicate verbally and who had a learning disability did not have recorded communication plans in place at the time of the inspection. Whilst some staff could explain informally what they felt their communication meant, people were at risk of not being understood because there was no clear guidance for all staff. During the assessment, the provider requested to add learning disabilities to their registration.
The provider had taken action to address all the shortfalls identified at the last inspection. The service now had effective systems to ensure people were supported by staff who were competent, skilled and experienced. The registered manager had spent considerable time looking at how to upgrade and personalise the environment and was passionate about people having access to a diverse range of activities including activities away from the home. Staff had received effective training to help them support people. There were now sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and the support hours commissioned by the local authority. Staffing levels enabled people to access their community.
People were supported to take their medicines safely. Incidents were clearly recorded and reviewed by managers to ensure any learning from incidents was implemented. The provider had successfully worked to reduce restrictions on people and improve their quality of life.
Most people had support plans which reflected their individual needs. The provider worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people had access to the care they needed. Staff said they could raise any concerns with the management team and were confident action would be taken as a result.
Records of decision-making processes where people did not have capacity to consent to their care and treatment were not always clear. While we saw a detailed MCA assessment and guidance document, which had been issued to all staff to provide a consistent framework and guide for undertaking and recording decision-making processes this had not been consistently applied for everyone. This meant it was not always clear how decisions about people’s care should be made. Information was provided for people in formats which were more accessible for them, and staff were skilled in people’s communication methods. Members of the management team demonstrated they had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively. Governance systems were now effective in identifying shortfalls in the service and ensuring improvements were made.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives were positive about the quality of their care and support. Relatives said they thought people were safe living at the service and knew who they could talk to if they had any concerns. We saw people were relaxed in the company of staff and spending time in communal areas. People wanted to talk to us about the care they received. Relatives told us staff were available to support people to do the things they wanted to. People told us they were supported to spend time away from the home. Of the 6 relatives we spoke to, all were positive about the service and the staffing. Of the 8 people we spoke to, all told us they liked living at the home, were excited about the activities and they liked the food. Comments included “The registered manager is great, they just get things done” and “We are listened to and offered a voice”.
Relatives said people received good support from knowledgeable staff who treated them as individuals. During the inspection we observed staff gaining people’s consent before providing any support and when planning what people wanted to do.
We observed people being treated with respect by staff who knew people’s needs. People spoke positively to us about their experiences of living at the home. Relatives told us staff were kind, respectful and patient. Comments from relatives included, “The staff are very caring” and “I know [person] is happy at Avebury House Care Centre.”
People were supported to take part in a range of activities, depending on their wishes.
Relatives felt improvements had been made following a change in management. Comments included: “Since the registered manager has been here, the whole service has changed so much for the better” and “The registered manager involves the residents, they spend time getting to know them and looking at what they can do to ensure they are always considered”. People knew staff and leaders and had developed strong relationships with them. We observed people interacting confidently with staff who demonstrated a good understanding of their needs, including how to communicate with them. All of the people we spoke to were kind and positive about the staff and the provider.