CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abafields Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Abafields Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safer staffing and stronger management, but resident meetings had not taken place for some time.
This was a focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 13 April 2022, spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and a visiting professional, observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines processes, suitable safeguarding arrangements and better checks on care quality. People said they felt safe, supported and comfortable raising concerns.
The inspection followed a previous Requires Improvement rating and breaches about staffing and management oversight. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach. Resident meetings had not taken place for some time, and the home did not yet have a registered manager.
Staffing improved
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff recruitment, training and supervision were also checked.
“Enough staff had been deployed to meet needs and keep people safe.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Staff had medicines training and yearly competency checks. Records showed medicines were given correctly and at the right time.
“This had been used effectively and correctly and confirmed people had been given the correct medicines at the right time.” from the report
Better management checks
The home had regular audits and an improvement plan that recorded actions and completion dates. This was a clear improvement since the previous inspection.
“A range of audits and monitoring had been completed on a daily, weekly, monthly and less frequent basis” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and knew staff well. Staff had safeguarding training and concerns were recorded and reported appropriately.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Resident meetings had stopped
needs fixingFormal resident meetings had not taken place for some time. The manager said a quarterly schedule was being set up, but inspectors recommended improving how people's and relatives' views were gathered.
“The manager confirmed meetings had not taken place for some time, although a new schedule was being set up” from the report
Worn décor
minorThe home was clean, but some décor was old and worn. More work was planned, although there was not yet a renovation plan with timescales.
“Although clean, the décor of the home was old and worn.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The home manager was applying to become registered.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Have quarterly resident meetings and video meetings for relatives now started, and how are suggestions acted on?
- 02What is the timetable for the planned redecoration and is there now a written renovation plan?
- 03Has the home manager completed the application to become registered?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed when people's support needs change?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found staffing, infection control and management oversight needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 4 February 2021 and reviewed information until 26 February. They spoke with residents, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was not always safe. Staffing had been reduced and the dependency assessment had not been reviewed for several months. Inspectors also found weaknesses in visitor checks and the isolation of a person who had tested positive for COVID-19.
The home was not always well-led. Provider-level checks had not been carried out, and staff said they did not feel supported or comfortable raising concerns. A new manager had started making changes, including reviewing staffing needs and arranging staff supervisions.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 5 December 2019, to Requires Improvement. The inspection only rated Safe and Well-led. Previous ratings for the other questions were carried forward.
Medicines
Medicines were administered and stored appropriately. Staff understood when medicines should be given, and electronic records had no gaps.
“Staff had a good understanding around the timely administration of medication and there were no gaps in the services electronic medication recording system.” from the report
Risk and safety checks
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about risks. Records showed action and learning after accidents, and safety certificates were up to date.
“Care plans provided clear guidance for staff on how to minimise risks to people and keep them safe.” from the report
Person-centred care
Inspectors found person-centred care in care plans and in feedback from people, relatives and staff.
“Person centred care was evident in people's care plans and from feedback provided by people, relatives and staff.” from the report
PPE
Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, and inspectors found supplies were good.
“Staff used PPE appropriately and supplies were good; staff reported they had received training and guidance.” from the report
Insufficient staffing
seriousStaffing had been reduced in several areas. During lunch, one person struggled with their meal for a significant period because staff were supporting other residents.
“The provider had failed to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff.” from the report
Infection control
seriousVisitor checking systems were not being used on the inspection day. A person who had tested positive for COVID-19 shared a room with someone who had not tested positive.
“People were not always isolated safely when they had tested positive for COVID-19.” from the report
Weak provider oversight
seriousThe provider had not carried out regular quality audits, so it did not have enough oversight of what was happening in the home.
“The provider had not carried out auditing and subsequently had no oversight of internal practices at the home.” from the report
Staff voice and openness
needs fixingStaff consistently said they had been asked to censor their feedback before the inspection. CQC recommended building a more open and transparent culture.
“We recommend the provider continues to embed a culture of openness and transparency, using this to respond to concerns raised by staff.” from the report
CCTV and changing arrangements
needs fixingCameras had been installed where staff were expected to change clothes, but a separate changing cubicle was not in place at the time. CCTV signs were also not clearly displayed.
“Cameras had also been installed in areas where staff were expected to get changed into their uniforms.” from the report
- 01How many care, domestic, laundry and kitchen staff are now working, and how are staffing levels matched to residents' needs?
- 02When was the dependency assessment last reviewed, and how often will it be reviewed?
- 03How are visitor arrivals recorded and how are people isolated safely if they test positive for COVID-19 or another infection?
- 04What provider-level audits are now being completed, and can families see the resulting improvement plan?
- 05How can staff and families raise concerns privately, and what evidence shows that concerns are acted on?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Abafields Residential Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bolton
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.