CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbey Dean
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, and confirmed that an earlier legal concern had been addressed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 23 July 2018. Inspectors reviewed records, medicines, staffing and quality checks. They spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff and a healthcare professional.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness, supported to make choices and given care that reflected their needs and interests.
At the previous inspection, the home had breached Regulation 13 because a person was deprived of their liberty without lawful authority. Inspectors found the required improvements had been made, so the home met that regulation at this inspection.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were managed safely, staff had competency checks and recruitment checks were completed. Inspectors also found enough staff to respond to people's needs promptly.
“There were robust systems in place to manage, administer, store and dispose of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and built trusting relationships. Inspectors saw people being supported with dignity, privacy and respect.
“We observed positive interactions between people and staff, staff knew people well and had built trusting relationships.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was adapted to people's interests, communication needs and changing health. Staff supported meaningful activities and helped people maintain independence.
“Care continued to be personalised to meet the needs of individuals including their care, social and wellbeing needs.” from the report
Effective improvement systems
The manager used audits, feedback and reviews to identify risks and improve care. Inspectors gave examples involving falls, hydration and urinary tract infections.
“The registered manager completed robust and effective quality assurance systems and processes in place to assess, monitor and drive improvements in the quality of care people received.” from the report
Improved legal safeguards
The home had acted on the previous breach relating to unlawful restrictions. Inspectors found applications and tracking arrangements were now in place.
“At this inspection we found the provider had implemented the actions detailed within their plan and had met the regulatory requirements of this regulation.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you assess and review my relative's individual needs, preferences and communication needs?
- 02How do you make sure any restrictions on my relative's freedom are legally authorised and kept under review?
- 03How do you respond if my relative's health, mood or behaviour changes?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and how are complaints dealt with?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found a legal safeguard failure and rated the service Requires Improvement for effectiveness.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 and 13 October 2016. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They also observed care at lunchtime and checked care plans, medicines records, staffing, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found people were safe, cared for kindly, supported with personalised care and living in a well-led service. Staffing, medicines, food, activities and access to healthcare were generally found to be suitable.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective care. One person's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation had expired, although the restriction was still in place. This meant the person's liberty may have been restricted without lawful safeguards, and the report recorded a breach of Regulation 13.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff with suitable skills and experience. Medicines records were complete and medicines were stored securely.
“People's medicines had been administered and managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated warmly and respectfully. Staff supported people's choices and protected their privacy and dignity.
“We observed staff being caring and attentive to people during our visit.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, life stories and support needs. Staff showed they knew how people wanted their care delivered.
“People received care and support that was personalised and responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People had access to activities such as music, bingo, discussions and drawing. Meetings and questionnaires gave people and relatives ways to suggest improvements.
“Our observations confirmed that the manner in which activities provided ensured everybody accommodated at Abbey Dean could participate if they chose to do so.” from the report
Open management
People and staff described the management as approachable and supportive. Quality checks were carried out across several areas of the service.
“The registered manager promoted a positive culture which was open and inclusive.” from the report
Expired liberty safeguard
seriousOne person's authorisation had expired in February 2016, but the restriction on leaving the home continued. Inspectors said this could mean the person's liberty was restricted without lawful safeguards.
“However, records demonstrated the authorisation for one person had expired in February 2016.” from the report
Choice about bathing
minorThe satisfaction survey found that three people said they did not have a choice about when to have a bath. The report says the provider stated people had been offered a choice on admission.
“However, three people said they did not have a choice when to have a bath.” from the report
Some needs not understood
needs fixingTwo people responding to the survey said staff did not understand their needs or could not meet them. The manager said these concerns had been discussed and action had been taken, although this was not recorded.
“Two people said that the staff did not understand their needs or were not able to meet them.” from the report
- 01Are all current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations in place, and how do you make sure none expire?
- 02What action was taken after the expired authorisation identified by inspectors?
- 03How do residents choose when to have a bath, and how are these choices recorded?
- 04How do you check that staff understand each person's needs, especially for people living with dementia?
- 05How are people's suggestions and complaints recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; it was the first inspection since the current provider was registered in August 2014. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 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 Dean
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 August 2014.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.