CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 February 2022. It followed a recent COVID-19 outbreak and focused on infection prevention, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was clean and that high-touch areas were cleaned regularly. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, followed infection-control guidance and took part in testing and vaccination programmes.
Visitors had to follow safety measures, including testing, using protective equipment and staying in suitable areas. The home was meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirement that applied at the time.
The home was inspected but not rated. The report gives an inspection finding for Safe, but not a quality rating for any of the five questions.
Clean environment
The home was clean, with regular cleaning of high-touch areas and governance arrangements to maintain this.
“The service was clean. There was regular cleaning of high touch point areas.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors were tested, given protective equipment and restricted to safe areas in line with government guidance.
“Visiting procedures were robust to reduce the risk of COVID-19.” from the report
Staff infection control
Staff received training, competency checks and spot checks. Inspectors saw staff using the correct protective equipment.
“Training and competency checks ensured staff were skilled in infection control processes.” from the report
Outbreak management
The report says the home had managed a previous COVID-19 outbreak, with staff speaking positively about the oversight and management provided.
“Staff spoke highly of the registered manager's oversight and management of this.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
People had been supported with COVID-19 testing and vaccination, and their individual COVID-19 risks had been assessed.
“People's individual risks in relation to COVID-19 had been assessed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitor testing, protective equipment and access to safe areas managed now?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent in infection-control procedures?
- 03What measures are in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
- 04How are each person's COVID-19 risks assessed and reviewed?
- 05How are people supported with COVID-19 testing and vaccination?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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, September 2019
Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with a few records and follow-up processes needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 August and 2 September 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, good support with food and healthcare, respectful care and activities that reflected people's interests.
There were some minor shortfalls. One blood sugar risk assessment did not explain what to do when readings were unsafe. The complaints information did not include the local government ombudsman route, and there was not always evidence that suggestions from residents' meetings had been acted on. The manager took action on these points.
The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection on 16 November 2016. A Good rating means inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection, although it was not a guarantee that every aspect was perfect.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe with staff. Inspectors found staff understood safeguarding and how to reduce risks such as falls and choking.
“People and relatives confirmed that people felt safe and secure with staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as friendly, kind and caring. Staff supported privacy, dignity, personal choices and independence.
“People and relatives said that staff were friendly, kind and caring.” from the report
Good health and food support
People received support to eat and drink enough and to access healthcare. Staff worked with health professionals when needed.
“People were provided with care and support that ensured they had good nutrition and hydration.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered activities such as music, games, exercise, trips out and entertainers. Care plans recorded people's interests and life histories.
“These included pampering sessions such as doing nails, games, exercises, bingo, music, trips out and entertainers.” from the report
Blood sugar risk plan
needs fixingOne risk assessment did not explain what staff should do if a person's blood sugar was outside the safe range. Staff knew what to do, and the manager took action to follow this up.
“One risk assessment about monitoring a person's blood sugar levels did not detail about what to do if the levels were not within safe range” from the report
Complaints information
minorThe complaints procedure did not initially explain how to contact the local government ombudsman. The manager amended the information after the inspection.
“The procedure for complainants to refer to the local government ombudsman was not included.” from the report
Tracking residents' suggestions
minorThere was not always evidence showing whether suggestions made at residents' meetings had been acted on. The manager later sent evidence that a system had been put in place.
“For suggestions made in residents meetings, there was not always evidence to support that they had been taken up.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and review blood sugar risks, including what staff must do when readings are outside the safe range?
- 02How are suggestions from residents' meetings recorded, acted on and reported back to residents?
- 03What information do you give families about making a complaint and contacting the local government ombudsman?
- 04How many staff are on duty at weekends, and how do you check that this is enough for residents' needs?
- 05Which activities are currently offered, and how are they matched to each person's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection in 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 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.
Every inspection of Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House →
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House →
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 March 2012.
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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.