CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbeleigh House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, regular risk checks and safe medicines systems. Staff had safeguarding training and knew what to do if they suspected abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received assessments, staff training and support, suitable food and access to health professionals. The home had systems for consent and mental capacity decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals described staff as kind, friendly and helpful. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were personalised and staff knew people well, but activities were limited and did not always keep people engaged. Birthday celebrations had been stopped without evidence that people's preferences had been considered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, clear staff roles, regular audits and surveys, and action taken in response to feedback.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Abbeleigh House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but activities did not always keep people engaged.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 March 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, recruitment files and safety records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staff were trained and supported, and people were treated with kindness and dignity.
The Responsive rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that there were few activities, and some people were not always fully engaged. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in October 2016, and this overall rating remained Good.
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. The records and medicines checked by inspectors were in order.
“The medicine administration record sheets and the medicines we checked were all in order.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff showed caring attitude towards people. Relatives told us and compliment cards confirmed that staff comforted and reassured people when necessary.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's history, needs, preferences and abilities. People and relatives were involved in planning care.
“Care plans were person-centred. They contained details about people's past life and described who the person was, what they needed, how they wanted to be supported and what their preferences were.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingInspectors saw few activities and found that some people were not fully engaged. The home said it planned to make the activity co-ordinator role full time.
“We observed few activities being provided by staff.” from the report
Birthday decisions
needs fixingThe home had stopped organising birthday celebrations without evidence that people had been consulted or that their preferences had been considered.
“There was no evidence to confirm that people's preferences were considered or they were involved in this decision.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available each week, and how are they matched to each person's interests and abilities?
- 02Did the activity co-ordinator role become full time, and how do you check whether activities are keeping people engaged?
- 03How are people and relatives consulted about birthday celebrations and other changes to activities?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in creating and reviewing their personalised care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2019 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with one safeguarding referral missed and limited activities for some people.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 August 2016. Inspectors looked at the whole service, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and medicine rounds, and checked care records, staff files, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. Staff had received relevant training and supervision, and people's care records reflected their needs.
Inspectors found kind and respectful relationships between staff and people. People were supported with food, healthcare, choices, privacy and activities. However, one safeguarding referral after a fall had not been sent to the local authority when it should have been. This was sent during the inspection.
The previous inspection in August 2015 found problems with medicines, staff supervision and records. The inspectors found these legal requirements had since been met and the service had improved.
Safe medicines
Medicines were recorded fully, stored securely and given on time. Inspectors found no gaps in the administration records.
“They showed that people received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff gave people time and attention, explained what they were doing and asked for consent. They respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“We observed staff attending to people's needs in a way that was caring, kind, respectful and patient.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences, histories, communication needs and activities. They were reviewed monthly.
“The care plans were written in a personalised way, which included health care needs, any nutritional requirements, likes, dislikes, personal histories, what activities people liked to do and what was important to them.” from the report
Improved staff support
The home had addressed the previous shortfall in supervision and appraisals. Staff records showed regular meetings, training and reviews.
“The staff files showed that staff received monthly or two monthly supervision meetings with either the registered manager or a senior manager, which were clearly recorded.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff found the management approachable. The home used surveys, meetings and other checks to seek views and improve care.
“We saw quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place, which included seeking the views of people and their relatives.” from the report
Safeguarding referral missed
needs fixingAfter a person's fall, a safeguarding alert intended for the local authority was not sent until inspectors raised the issue. The home said it would check that safeguarding procedures were followed through in future.
“However, during our inspection, we found that following a recent incident, when a person had a fall, a safeguarding alert was intended to be referred to the local authority but was not.” from the report
Limited activities for some people
minorSome people said there was little to do, although inspectors saw television, music, board games, garden time and conversations taking place.
“Activities took place in the service, although some people felt that there was little for people to do.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every safeguarding referral is sent to the local authority and checked?
- 02What activities would you offer my relative based on their interests, dementia needs and ability to take part?
- 03How often would my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed if their needs changed?
- 04How would you keep me informed about changes, incidents, complaints or healthcare appointments?
- 05How often would staff caring for my relative receive training, supervision and appraisals?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of the whole service and also checked whether improvements required after the comprehensive inspection on 26 August 2015 had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 2016 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 Abbeleigh House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 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 15 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 Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 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.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.