CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbey House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe staffing levels, medicines and dignity concerns, with warning notices issued.
This was an unannounced inspection after concerns about staffing, people’s needs not being met and the condition of the home. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, policies and audits.
The home was not always safe. People sometimes waited a long time for help, including with going to the toilet. Medicines records were incomplete, risks were not always fully assessed, and some areas and equipment were dirty or in disrepair.
Care was not always effective or person-centred. Mealtimes could be noisy and rushed, training was not always up to date, and people were not always supported to make choices. Staff knew people well, safeguarding arrangements were in place, and people enjoyed activities.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not rated in this inspection. The previous overall rating was Good.
Safe recruitment
The home completed the required checks before staff started work.
“We found appropriate checks such as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had been completed prior to staff starting.” from the report
Staff knowledge
Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and the support they required.
“Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and the support they required.” from the report
Activities
People frequently enjoyed the activities, and staff adapted them when needed.
“We saw there was a comprehensive activity plan at the service.” from the report
Healthcare support
Records showed that staff made referrals when people’s health needs changed and helped people get emergency care when needed.
“Records demonstrated referrals were made to healthcare professionals when people's needs changed.” from the report
Staffing and long waits
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs. Call bell records showed waits of more than 20 minutes on 22 occasions, with the longest wait over 58 minutes.
“records for October demonstrated people waited longer than 20 minutes on 22 occasions, with the longest being over 58 minutes.” from the report
Cleanliness and maintenance
seriousSome mattresses and cushion covers were stained and smelled unpleasant. Chipped paint and limescale were also found, creating infection risks.
“We identified concerns with the cleanliness and upkeep of people's living accommodation, including multiple mattresses and cushion covers which were stained and malodorous.” from the report
Dignity and toilet support
seriousSome people waited a long time for help with toileting and experienced incontinence. Inspectors said people were not always treated with dignity and respect.
“I have had to wait up to 2 hours to be taken to the toilet by which time it was too late.” from the report
Weak checks and follow-up
seriousAudits identified some problems but did not lead to effective improvements. Medicines checks were also missed at times when the manager was absent.
“Systems and processes failed to identify concerns in relation to infection control.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and call bell response times since the inspection?
- 02How are transdermal patch records, handwritten medicine records and as-required medicine protocols now checked?
- 03How have stained mattresses and cushion covers, chipped paintwork and limescale been dealt with?
- 04How will staff make sure people receive timely toilet support and are treated with dignity?
- 05How are audits and the action plan being monitored, especially when the registered manager is absent?
This was a focused inspection prompted by concerns about staffing, people’s needs and the premises; only Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated, while Caring and Responsive were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 June 2024 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 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, with minor environmental issues fixed immediately.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 10 May 2022. Two inspectors spoke with six people and eight staff. They reviewed five people's care and medicines records, as well as management records and infection control arrangements.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff during the visit, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments, trained staff and good access to health professionals. People were supported with food, drink, choice and consent.
The inspection followed concerns about safety and staffing. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. A broken window restrictor and two damaged toilet seats were replaced or fixed immediately after inspectors raised them.
This was not a full review of all five areas. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 27 April 2018.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs during the visit. Recruitment checks included references, identity checks and DBS checks.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff and records checked by managers showed that administration was recorded correctly.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) we looked at showed that information was correctly recorded” from the report
Health and dietary support
Staff understood people's health needs, food preferences and dietary requirements. Referrals to health and social care professionals were made when needed.
“People received support to manage their health care effectively.” from the report
Open management
The management team acted on feedback and used audits to identify and improve the service. Staff said they felt supported.
“The management team were open, honest, and receptive to our feedback.” from the report
Broken window restrictor
minorOne window restrictor in an upstairs laundry room was broken. Management fixed it immediately after inspectors raised it.
“We found that one window restrictor was broken in an upstairs laundry room.” from the report
Damaged toilet seats
minorTwo toilet seats had worn or damaged patches, making them harder to keep clean. They were replaced immediately after inspectors raised the issue.
“we found two toilet seats with worn/damaged patches on them, which meant they were more difficult to keep clean.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels do you have at different times of day, and how do you respond if staffing falls short?
- 02How do you check that repairs and environmental safety issues have been completed and remain effective?
- 03What are the current ratings and evidence for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected in this visit?
- 04How are residents' food preferences, dietary needs and health changes recorded and reviewed?
- 05How can residents and families raise concerns, and how will the home show what action was taken?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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.
Every inspection of Abbey House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2015.
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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.