CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abberley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff understood safeguarding, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were in place. Staff raised some concerns about having enough people to cover shifts comfortably, although inspectors saw enough staff to meet needs during the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Effective. It says staff received ongoing training and worked with other agencies to meet people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect and were offered choices. Relatives said they were kept involved, and inspectors saw positive interactions between people and staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Responsive. It describes person-centred care plans, attention to people's preferences and support to take part in suitable activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, good communication and systems for checking care quality. Some documents were not up to date after the pandemic closure, with an action plan in place to address this.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed respite care, with some records still needing review.
The inspection took place on 10 May 2022. Inspectors spoke with three people using the service, five relatives, seven staff members and two visiting professionals. They also checked care and medicines records, staff files, audits and other management records.
The home provides short respite stays for up to nine people with a learning disability or other complex needs. At the inspection, three people were receiving personal care. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity and involved in choices about their care.
The home had reopened in October 2021 after the pandemic and was increasing admissions slowly. Inspectors found good communication with families and other professionals, safe medicines systems and infection control measures. Some documents had not been regularly reviewed, but an action plan was in place.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Caring and Well-led were each rated Good. The last inspection, published in September 2018, also rated the home Good.
Safe support
People had risk assessments and care plans to guide staff. Staff understood safeguarding and how to support people's individual needs.
“People were assessed so any potential risks were identified, and steps taken to keep them safe.” from the report
Choice and dignity
People were involved in decisions and were supported to make choices about their care and daily activities. Their personal preferences were recorded.
“Observations and records showed that people experienced choice and control over their support and care planning was person centred.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions between people and staff. Relatives described feeling confident that their family members were well cared for during respite stays.
“The culture of the service promoted people's independence and people, relatives and staff all reported being part of a family.” from the report
Good communication
The home kept in contact with families and worked with professionals involved in people's care. Feedback was collected and used to identify learning.
“Professionals we consulted told us Abberley House worked in partnership with local services to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingSome staff said there were not always enough people in the team to cover shifts comfortably. The manager said new staff had been recruited, and inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs on the day.
“Staff members told us there weren't always enough staff available in the team to comfortably cover the shifts required.” from the report
Records needing review
minorNot all documents had been reviewed regularly after the home reopened following the pandemic. The manager knew about this and had an action plan to update them.
“However, we found that not all documents in place had been regularly reviewed.” from the report
- 01Have all documents that needed updating after the pandemic closure now been reviewed?
- 02How many staff usually work during a respite stay, and what happens if shifts are not comfortably covered?
- 03How will you make sure medicines, including as-required medicines, are recorded and checked during my relative's stay?
- 04How will my relative be involved in choices about activities, meals and their care plan?
- 05How will you keep me informed about my relative's health, care and any changes during the respite stay?
This inspection looked at Safe, Caring and Well-led and assessed the home's approach to right support, right care and right culture; separate ratings for Effective and Responsive were not given in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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 2018
Abberley House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with a few records and training issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 August 2018. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people using the service, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were handled safely, staff understood people's needs, and people were treated with kindness and respect.
There were some minor shortfalls. A small number of risk assessments were out of date, some training had been cancelled, and staff had differing levels of knowledge about the Mental Capacity Act. The registered manager said action was being taken. The overall rating was unchanged from January 2016.
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors saw medicines being given effectively, with clear records and guidance for staff. Medicines were administered by two staff members and competency checks were carried out.
“We saw that medicines were recorded clearly with no gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships with people and treated them with kindness. Inspectors saw people appearing relaxed and at ease with staff.
“We saw that there were positive relationships between people using the service and those caring for them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were asked about their preferences and involved in choices about food, activities and daily routines. Staff encouraged people to do things for themselves where possible.
“We saw people making choices and staff listening to them.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home had regular meetings and several audits covering care records, medicines, incidents, staffing, safety and the environment. Relatives and staff said managers listened to them.
“We found that a number of audits looking at the quality of the service were in place.” from the report
Cancelled training
minorStaff had received recent training, but some courses had been cancelled. The provider was reviewing how training was organised and said the courses would be rearranged.
“Staff members told us of how some training courses had been cancelled.” from the report
Uneven understanding of legal safeguards
needs fixingStaff understood the Mental Capacity Act overall, but some staff had a better understanding than others of how a person's liberty might be restricted. The manager said this would be addressed in supervision.
“Staff members had an understanding of mental capacity and deprivation of liberty, but some had a much better grasp of it than others.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure risk assessments for bedrails, as-needed medicines and telecare are reviewed and updated promptly?
- 02Which staff training courses were cancelled, and have they all now been rearranged?
- 03How do you check that every member of staff understands consent, the Mental Capacity Act and restrictions on people's liberty?
- 04How will you support my relative's usual routines, communication needs, diet and health needs during respite stays?
- 05If my relative's health deteriorates during respite, how would you discuss end-of-life wishes and support with our family?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including observations, discussions with people, relatives and staff, and checks of care, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 September 2018 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 Abberley House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 November 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 Sandwell
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.