CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Abbey Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, infection control and staff recruitment were managed safely, although the way staff were deployed sometimes delayed support.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had suitable food choices, support with dietary needs and access to health professionals. Staff received training and understood mental capacity and least restrictive care requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and had good relationships with people. They promoted dignity, independence and involvement in everyday decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and activities reflected people's preferences, interests, communication needs and beliefs. People and relatives knew how to complain and said concerns were dealt with.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership was open and supportive, but systems did not always identify staffing delays, incident patterns or gaps in care records. The provider was asked to improve these arrangements.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Abbey Court Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership systems needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 5 March 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staffing, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were protected from harm, received their medicines safely, had suitable food and healthcare, and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported people's choices, interests, communication needs and religious beliefs.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had enough staff overall, but some people waited too long for help after breakfast. Checks on incidents and care records did not always find problems. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Safe medicines and risk management
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed and that risks linked to people's care, the building and equipment were managed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff communicating well, protecting dignity and encouraging independence.
“We saw that staff had a good rapport with people and included them in conversations when they were supporting them.” from the report
Personalised activities and choices
People were supported to follow their routines, hobbies, interests, faiths and spiritual beliefs. Activities were offered both individually and in groups.
“Activities supported people both on a one to one and group basis, and there was a regular programme of activities and social events at the home.” from the report
Improved care since the previous inspection
Inspectors found that earlier concerns about choice, dignity, interaction and activities had been addressed. The overall rating rose from Requires Improvement to Good.
“At this inspection, we found the required improvements had been made.” from the report
Delays after breakfast
needs fixingThere were enough staff overall to keep people safe, but staff deployment meant some people waited a long time for help after breakfast. Some people were left at the table for up to two hours.
“We saw some people were sat at the table for up to two hours after breakfast started before staff returned to the dining room to support them.” from the report
Incident checks were not consistent
needs fixingAccident and incident reports were not always reviewed for patterns or risks. Some incidents involving behaviour that challenged others had not been reviewed by the manager until inspectors raised them.
“Accident and incident reports were not systematically reviewed to check for safety-related themes and trends.” from the report
Gaps in care records
seriousAudits did not identify all the problems in care records. Two care plans for people at risk of skin damage were incomplete, including one that was missing.
“For example, care plans for two people at risk of skin damage were not complete; one care plan was missing altogether and another did not fully reflect the person's needs.” from the report
Some equality needs were not assessed
needs fixingThe assessment process did not always discuss people's sexuality and relationship needs when they moved into the home. The provider was developing this process.
“The provider had recognised that their assessment process did not always ensure people's diverse needs were considered.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing deployment at breakfast since the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that people receive timely help after meals?
- 03How are accident and incident reports reviewed for repeated patterns or risks?
- 04How do you check that every person's care plan is complete and reflects current needs, especially where there is a risk of skin damage?
- 05How do your assessments now cover sexuality, relationships and other diverse needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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, May 2017
Abbey Court Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care but inconsistent support with meals, dignity and activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 April 2017. Two inspectors and an expert-by-experience spoke with people, visitors and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, staff files and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing and recruitment checks were suitable, and there was a system for monitoring quality.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People did not always get a choice of food, staff did not always spend time talking with people, personal needs were sometimes discussed in front of others, and activities were not equally available across the home.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the inspectors found important areas that were not consistently good and needed improvement.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given, recorded, stored and disposed of appropriately. This included safeguards for medicines given covertly.
“People's medicines were administered, recorded and stored correctly to ensure they received their prescribed treatments safely.” from the report
Managing risks
People had risk assessments and care guidance. Staff used safe moving equipment and distraction techniques when someone became unsettled.
“People's risks associated with their care were identified, assessed and managed to keep them safe.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff and appropriate recruitment checks. Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisals.
“There were a sufficient number of suitably recruited staff available to care for people.” from the report
Management oversight
The home had audits, meetings and ways for people and relatives to give their views. The manager met the registration requirements described in the report.
“There was an audit programme in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements in care and safety.” from the report
Family contact
Relatives could visit when they wished, and people were supported to keep in touch with family and friends.
“Relatives were able to visit whenever they wished.” from the report
Unequal meal choices
needs fixingPeople on the ground floor were not always consulted about the food they wanted and were not always offered an alternative when they did not eat a meal.
“This demonstrated that providing meal choice support was not consistent.” from the report
Limited conversation and dignity
needs fixingSome staff did not interact with people unless they were providing care. Staff also discussed personal support needs loudly and in front of others.
“Some staff discussed people's personal needs in front of others.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure people on every floor choose their meals and are offered an alternative if they do not want the meal provided?
- 02How do you check that staff protect people's dignity and do not discuss personal care needs where others can hear?
- 03How often will staff visit people who choose to stay in their bedrooms to talk with them and check they are well?
- 04What regular individual and group activities are now available on the ground floor?
- 05How are the care plans being made more person-centred, as described in the report?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions and checks of four care plans, staff files and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 2017 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 Court Care Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 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 Staffordshire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.