CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbey Care Direct Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Recruitment checks, staffing arrangements, infection control and medicines systems were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care needs were assessed before support began and records were reviewed when needs changed. Staff received induction, shadowing, training and supervision.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and sensitive. People were involved in care planning and staff supported their dignity, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences and specific needs, such as female-only support and accessible information. People knew how to complain and felt concerns would be acted on.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The agency had regular audits, staff meetings, spot checks and satisfaction surveys. Inspectors found good oversight and positive working relationships with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Abbey Care Direct Limited was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with one care-plan gap corrected during the inspection.
This was a planned inspection carried out over three days in May 2019. Inspectors visited the office and four people's homes, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, recruitment, training, medicines and quality records.
The home was actually inspected as a domiciliary care agency supporting 33 people in their own homes. People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and reliable. Inspectors found that care was personalised, staff had suitable training, medicines were managed safely and visits were planned with travel time.
Inspectors found one gap in some care plans. They did not explain how staff should provide additional rescue support if a person's health deteriorated. The registered manager amended the care plan immediately.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection, published in August 2016, also rated the service Good.
Safe care
Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm and that staff understood safeguarding. Recruitment, staffing and medicines arrangements were also appropriate.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring and respectful. Staff made time to involve people and support their dignity.
“I like all the carers. They all treat me with respect and are kind to me.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included individual preferences and instructions, and people and relatives were involved in creating them. Staff had enough time to provide the agreed support.
“Care plans identified unique considerations staff needed to be aware of to ensure responsive support was delivered.” from the report
Staff training and support
New staff shadowed a mentor for at least two weeks. Training, competency checks and regular supervision were in place.
“New staff work alongside (shadowed) a mentor for a minimum of two weeks.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, spot checks, feedback and electronic call monitoring to oversee the service and identify improvements.
“The service had systems and procedures in place to monitor and assess the quality of their service.” from the report
Care plans did not cover one emergency situation
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain how staff should provide additional rescue support if a person's health deteriorated. The registered manager amended the care plan immediately after inspectors raised this.
“Care plans highlighted potentials risks around moving and handling but did not guide staff on how to provide additional rescue support should their health deteriorate.” from the report
- 01How will you record what staff should do if my relative's health deteriorates and they need rescue support?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed after their needs change?
- 03How will you make sure visits include enough time for care, conversation and travel between people's homes?
- 04What support can you provide if my relative later needs end of life care?
- 05How will you use electronic call monitoring and spot checks to make sure visits happen as agreed?
This was a planned inspection of the domiciliary care agency's overall service, including all five questions; inspectors visited the office and four people's homes and reviewed selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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, August 2016
Abbey Care Direct Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a shortfall in reporting a safeguarding concern.
This was an announced inspection on 10 August 2016. Inspectors spoke with 10 people using the service, four relatives and six staff. They also checked care, medicines, risk, staff and management records.
The agency supported 39 people in their own homes. Inspectors found that people were safe, staff were trained, and recruitment checks were completed. People were usually supported by familiar staff who treated them with dignity and respected their choices.
Care was adapted when people's needs changed. People and relatives could give feedback or complain, and complaints checked by inspectors had been investigated and resolved. The agency had systems for checking the quality of care.
All five areas were rated Good. This means the inspectors found the service met the standards they checked, although they identified one management weakness about notifying the CQC of a safeguarding concern.
Familiar staff
People were usually supported by staff they knew. This helped staff understand people's preferences and build trusting relationships.
“People were supported safely by staff that they were familiar with.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and respected their privacy and dignity during personal care.
“People and their relatives considered that staff were respectful to them and maintained people's dignity and privacy when they supported them.” from the report
Care changed when needed
Staff and managers reviewed care plans and acted when people's needs changed, including arranging equipment with other professionals.
“People and their relatives told us that when there were changes to their care needs staff were quick to respond.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received training for general and individual care needs, along with regular support from managers.
“Staff received the training and support they needed to enable them to carry out their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Safeguarding notification was missed
needs fixingThe manager referred a safeguarding concern to the local authority but did not notify the CQC as required. The report says the manager did not fully understand when notifications had to be submitted.
“The registered manager confirmed that although they had made a referral to the local authority regarding a safeguarding concern they had failed to notify us of this concern.” from the report
- 01What has changed since 2016 to make sure all safeguarding concerns are notified to the CQC when required?
- 02How do you make sure the same small group of familiar staff can cover care calls reliably?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how quickly can it be changed if their needs alter?
- 04How are medicines records checked, and what happens if a discrepancy is found?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in giving feedback or making a complaint?
This was a full inspection of the domiciliary care service, covering all five rating areas; it supported an overall rating of Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 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 Abbey Care Direct Limited
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 February 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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.