A HOME care service run from Thurrock which looks after hundreds of local people has received a damning report from the Care Quality Commission which says it is 'inadequate'.

The report on South Ockendon-based Aveley House, which can be read in full via this link is extremely critical of the service and rates the service inadequate in terms of safety and leadership, while its qualities of caring, responsiveness and how effective it is are rates as requiring improvement.

The service offers care in the fields of dementia, learning disabilities, mental health conditions, personal care, physical disabilities, sensory impairments and caring for adults over 65 years.

Aveley House is run by South Essex Special Needs Housing Association Limited.

The summary report says:

"Aveley House is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to approximately 375 people in their own homes. At the time of inspection, the provider was unable to confirm the exact number of people being supported. The service covers a wide geographic area in Essex, including Castle Point, Rochford, Basildon, Basildon North, Brentwood, Harlow and Epping.

"CQC only inspects services where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

"People's experience of using this service and what we found

"Safe and effective systems were not in place to ensure people received support as required. Safeguarding processes were not effective and people were at potential risk of harm due to the poor management of safeguarding concerns. People experienced late, missed or shortened calls, which impacted on their care and did not ensure their needs were met. There was no plan in place for extreme or sudden staff shortages.

"The risk to staff and people using the service from COVID-19 had not been adequately assessed or measures put in place to reduce the risk. Staff did not have access to adequate and sufficient Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection. Where incidents occurred, there was a lack of oversight and lessons were not learnt to reduce the risk of the incident re-occurring.

"Although some staff told us they received supervision, these were not recorded, and staff meetings were not regularly held. Training was overdue in a number of areas, including on mental capacity. Staff had not received effective training in the management of risk relating to COVID-19. Staff were not seen to be fully supported, for example through a lack of COVID-19 risk assessments for those staff who may have underlying health conditions.

"Although some people using the service and their relatives said staff were caring and kind, our findings did not always suggest a consistently caring service. This includes the risk of harm due to late, missed or shortened visits. People were asked for their views on the service through quality monitoring visits and calls, however improvements to people's care were not always made as a result.

"Management of the service was not cohesive. The provider failed to demonstrate openness and transparency at all levels of the organisation. The registered manager did not have full access to complaints, safeguarding concerns or the training syllabus to ensure that they had effective oversight of the service. The organisational structure was not followed, and reporting lines were unclear. Systems were disorganised and some records including staff files could not be found. The service was unable to demonstrate any analysis of themes and trends or how learning was shared with the staff team to ensure continuous improvement.

"We have made a recommendation on the implementation of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS).

"People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice."