CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abba Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and had risk assessments covering areas such as mobility, medicines, mental health, finances, nutrition and health. Medicines, recruitment, infection control and staffing were found to be managed safely, although fire safety improvements were still in progress.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had relevant training and supervision, and people were supported with food, hydration, healthcare and their legal rights.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people well, involved them in decisions, respected privacy and promoted independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People could choose activities, maintain relationships, communicate their needs and make complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff spoke positively about the management. The provider used audits, feedback, meetings and unannounced visits to monitor the service, while noting that monitoring could be made more efficient.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Abba Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some fire safety work still in progress.
This was a planned inspection on 11 December 2019. One inspector spoke with two people, the manager and care staff, reviewed care and staff records, and checked safety and quality systems.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, medicines were managed properly, staffing was sufficient and staff were trained and supported.
People were involved in their care and had personalised care plans. They were supported with food, health appointments, activities, relationships, privacy and independence. The home had systems for complaints, learning from incidents and checking quality.
Some fire safety improvements were still being completed. Inspectors also found that a restriction on one person's leaving the home needed a formal DoLS assessment, which was arranged after the inspection. The overall rating remained Good, as did the rating at the previous inspection in 2017.
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored securely and records of administration and stock were accurate.
“Medicine administration records were fully and accurately completed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's preferences, interests and need for individual support.
“Care records were personalised and detailed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were caring. Staff were described as listening to people's views and respecting their privacy, dignity and choices.
“People told us staff were caring. Responses included, "[Staff] are kind" and "[Staff] are caring.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose food and activities, change their weekly activity plans and take part in interests such as outings, sport and the cinema.
“Each person had their own weekly activity timetable which they were able to change if they wished.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff had training, induction, regular supervision and appraisals. Records showed training was up to date.
“Training records showed staff were up to date with training including health and safety topics such as, fire safety, health and safety and first aid awareness.” from the report
Fire safety actions
needs fixingA fire safety inspection identified areas needing improvement, including an interlinked fire alarm system. Some actions had been completed and others were still in progress at the time of inspection.
“The service had recently had a fire safety inspection carried out by the London Fire Brigade which highlighted areas that needed improving including the installation of an interlinked fire alarm system.” from the report
Formal assessment of a restriction
needs fixingOne person had recently needed staff support to leave the home because of a change in health. The manager arranged a DoLS assessment after the inspection.
“However, one person who used the service was recently not able to leave the house without a staff member accompanying them because there was a change in their health condition.” from the report
More efficient quality monitoring
minorThe provider identified that its monitoring system could be more efficient and had an action plan due to be completed by the end of March 2020.
“They had noted a more efficient way was needed to monitor all aspects of service provision.” from the report
- 01Have all the fire safety actions been completed, including installation of the interlinked fire alarm system?
- 02What was the outcome of the DoLS assessment arranged after the inspection?
- 03How do you check that any restrictions on a person's freedom remain lawful and least restrictive?
- 04What changes were made to make quality monitoring more efficient by the end of March 2020?
- 05How are people involved in changing their care plans and activity timetables?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; the previous rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2020 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and safe support, but some recruitment and quality-check records needed improvement.
This was an announced inspection on 18 May 2017. One inspector spoke with three people living in the home and two staff members. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, policies, audits and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, respected and listened to. Inspectors saw kind interactions and found that people were supported to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare and take part in community activities.
The home remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection in March 2015. Inspectors found some gaps in records. These included missing interview records for staff and missing records of quality checks. The manager stopped a medicines practice called secondary dispensing during the inspection and updated the relevant care records.
Detailed risk support
Care files linked each area of support to a risk assessment. These included people's views and clear steps to reduce risks while supporting choice.
“Care files contained robust risk assessments that had been agreed with people.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and staff had positive relationships. Inspectors saw patient, sensitive support, including reassurance for someone who was anxious about the inspection.
“Observations during the inspection showed staff interacted with people in a kind and sensitive way that worked to alleviate people's anxiety.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's routines, preferences and the help they needed. They were updated after inspectors asked for more detail.
“The updated care plans contained a high level of detail about people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities such as going to cafés and playing darts. Staff looked for community activities that suited individual interests.
“Records of care confirmed that people were supported to attend a range of activities in the community.” from the report
Good premises checks
The home was well maintained, with regular fire safety, health and safety checks and an emergency plan.
“The premises were well maintained and the registered manager had completed all of the necessary safety checks and audits.” from the report
Missing recruitment records
needs fixingRecruitment checks showed staff were suitable, but interview records were not in the files. The manager recognised this and said the records would be kept in future.
“Recruitment files did not contain records of the interviews completed to assess staff were suitable to work in the service.” from the report
Medicines were repackaged
needs fixingThe home had been moving some medicines into another container rather than using the original packaging. The manager stopped this during the inspection, took pharmacy advice and updated the risk assessment.
“This is secondary dispensing and medicines should be administered from their original packaging.” from the report
Quality checks not recorded
needs fixingThe home carried out quality checks, but records of the checks and provider visits were not kept. Inspectors recommended following best practice on quality assurance.
“Records of the checks on the quality of the service had not been maintained.” from the report
- 01Can you show us how staff interview and suitability checks are recorded now?
- 02How do you make sure all medicines are given from their original packaging?
- 03What quality checks are carried out, and can we see the records of recent checks?
- 04How are care plans reviewed with each person and kept up to date?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for our relative?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the inspector spoke with three people and two staff members and reviewed two care plans, four staff files and other service records. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 June 2017 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 Abba Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
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 Waltham Forest
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 £1,200 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.