CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbey Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood how to protect them from abuse. Risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed well.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report, so its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report, so its previous rating was carried forward. Inspectors did report a caring atmosphere and respect for people's privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People had personalised care and communication support, but did not have enough stimulating activities. Inspectors said people's needs were not always met in this area.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management was visible and approachable. Governance systems, feedback arrangements and partnership working helped the home provide consistent care.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Abbey Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and well-led care, but activities were limited.
The unannounced inspection took place on 30 June 2022. One inspector spoke with people, staff and the manager, observed people in communal areas, and checked care plans, staff files, medicines records, menus and policies.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection controls were effective, and there were enough staff. Care plans were personalised and staff understood people's needs.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found people did not have enough stimulating activities and often were not engaged. The manager said planned improvements had been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The home remained Good overall, while ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
Staff knew people well, understood safeguarding, and managed risks appropriately. Medicines and infection control were also checked and found to be managed safely.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, abilities and communication needs. Staff knew how people wanted to be supported.
“People had person-centred care plans and staff knew the needs of each person they supported.” from the report
Good management
The manager was approachable, sought feedback and used audits to monitor the service. Staff said they felt supported.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people’s rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
Too few stimulating activities
needs fixingPeople had limited opportunities for activities and social engagement. The home had planned improvements, but these had not been fully delivered by the inspection.
“During this inspection, we did not observe people being engaged in stimulating activities most of the time.” from the report
- 01What stimulating activities are now available, and how often can residents take part?
- 02How do you make sure activities match each person's interests, abilities and cultural needs?
- 03What progress has been made on the activity improvements promised after the inspection?
- 04How will you monitor whether residents are spending less time alone or unoccupied?
- 05Which current ratings for Effective and Caring were carried forward from the previous inspection?
This inspection covered Safe, Responsive and Well-led; the other key question ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found caring, clean care, but said staffing levels and management cover needed review.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 December 2020. Inspectors looked at concerns about infection control, staffing, abuse prevention, food and management during the Covid-19 pandemic. They spoke with staff and relatives and checked care records, rotas, training records, menus and policies.
Inspectors found people had risk assessments and were protected from avoidable harm. The home was clean, staff had infection control training, and personal protective equipment was available. People were supported by caring staff and had meals that provided a balanced diet.
The inspection did not give new ratings. Safe, Effective and Well-led were marked 'Inspected but not rated' because only specific concerns were checked. These areas were rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 17 October 2019.
Inspectors recommended reviewing staffing levels as more people returned from hospital or moved into the home. They also recommended having management cover at all times because reporting to professionals was not effective when the registered manager was temporarily absent.
Infection control
The home was clean and staff had infection control training. There was a Covid-19 risk assessment, and staff had access to protective equipment.
“The provider had taken action to ensure areas identified as needing improvement by the IPC team were completed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found staff understood people's individual needs. Relatives and staff described a friendly and caring atmosphere.
“Staff were caring, respectful and knew how to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Food and choice
People had a two-week menu, could choose alternatives, and staff knew their food preferences. Inspectors found meals supported a balanced diet.
“People could choose and have meals not included on the menu.” from the report
Involvement of relatives
The home held meetings for people and relatives. These meetings covered issues such as staffing, furniture, meals and how the home was run.
“We discussed many things including any changes to staff, décor, furniture, meals, etc.” from the report
Staffing levels needed review
needs fixingStaffing was enough for people's needs on the inspection day, but the number of people using the home was expected to increase. Inspectors recommended reviewing staffing levels as occupancy changed.
“We recommend the provider adopts best practice of reviewing staffing levels to ensure the staffing levels are suitable for the number and needs of people using the service at any one time.” from the report
Management cover
needs fixingInspectors found that reporting staffing events and incidents to professionals was not effective while the registered manager was temporarily absent. They recommended a system for management cover at all times.
“However, we noted reporting of events such as staffing and incidents to professionals was not effective whilst the registered manager was temporarily absent.” from the report
- 01How do you review staffing levels when people return from hospital or new people move into the home?
- 02What is the current plan to reduce reliance on agency staff?
- 03Who manages the home and reports incidents to professionals when the registered manager is absent?
- 04How do you check that infection control training and personal protective equipment arrangements remain up to date?
- 05How are relatives' views collected now, given that a formal survey had not been completed that year?
This was a focused inspection of specific concerns under Safe, Effective and Well-led; the full key questions were not reviewed and no new overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 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.
Every inspection of Abbey Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 December 2018.
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 Barking and Dagenham
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. 79 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“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.