CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbey House - Morden
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, medicines were checked against stock balances, and risks, equipment, fire safety and infection control were monitored.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received relevant training and supervision. People were supported with nutrition, hydration, healthcare and decisions about their care, including best-interests decisions where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. No new Caring rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences, goals and support needs and were reviewed monthly. People were supported with activities, community access, relationships, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular quality checks covering medicines, care plans, infection control and other risks. People, relatives and staff were given opportunities to share their views.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Abbey House - Morden was rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and personalised care after earlier problems were improved.
Inspectors visited on 22 July and 2 August 2021. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, the provider and a visiting professional. They also checked care records, staff files, complaints, incidents and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment checks, accurate medicines records and regular risk and safety checks. They found staff had relevant training and that people received support with food, drink, healthcare and mental capacity decisions.
Care plans were reviewed monthly and included people's preferences, support needs and end of life wishes. People were supported to keep important relationships, take part in activities and raise complaints. Regular checks were used to monitor the quality of the home.
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. The Caring question was not inspected, and the report says ratings from earlier comprehensive inspections were used when calculating the overall rating.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment records included verified references, employment histories and DBS checks.
“There were enough staff employed to meet the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines records were checked against stock levels and regular audits were completed.
“Medicines Administration Records (MAR) were completed for people and these were checked against the stock balances of medicines and were found to be correct.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, goals and support needs. People had monthly meetings with their key worker and were supported to maintain important relationships.
“Support plans included an identified area of support, the intended goal/outcome, people's level of independence with regards to that area of support and the steps that staff could take to further support people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider had regular checks covering care plans, medicines, infection control, hospital admissions, falls and signs of ill health.
“The provider had a comprehensive system of governance and quality assurance checks in place to monitor the quality of service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are planned for each daytime and night shift, and what happens if someone is absent?
- 02How are medicines administration records and stock balances checked now, and what happens if there is an error?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed, and how will my relative and family be involved in those reviews?
- 04How are best-interests decisions and any DoLS arrangements reviewed when a person cannot make a decision themselves?
- 05How are residents and relatives able to raise concerns, and how are complaints and safeguarding issues followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led only; Caring was not inspected and previous comprehensive ratings were used where needed for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 2021 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 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring support, but shortfalls in night staffing, safeguarding knowledge, medicines and records.
The CQC carried out an unannounced inspection on 25 April 2019 after repeated whistleblowing concerns and information about recent safeguarding incidents. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, the manager and relatives. They reviewed care files, medicines records, staff files and other documents.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly and supported with dignity, activities and healthcare.
However, night staffing was not suitable because a volunteer was counted as part of the staffing level but did not provide personal care. Recruitment checks, safeguarding knowledge, medicines records, care records and quality monitoring were not always reliable. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection on 5 June 2018.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff engaging naturally with people and supporting their privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed care workers speaking and engaging with people throughout the inspection.” from the report
Choice and consent
Staff asked people for consent and offered choices before providing support. Mental capacity assessments and liberty safeguard procedures were followed where needed.
“We observed care workers asking people for their consent and offering them a choice before supporting them.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to attend day services, visit family, go out and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People told us they accessed the community regularly.” from the report
Clean and suitable environment
Communal areas were clean and well maintained. The building had accessible features, individual bedrooms and a well-maintained outside space.
“Communal areas were clean and well maintained.” from the report
Night staffing
seriousThere were not enough staff at night to meet people's needs. A volunteer was listed as the second night worker but did not provide personal care or support.
“There were not enough staff employed at night to meet the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
seriousOnly one staff member spoken with understood potential safeguarding risks and how to report them. The CQC recommended urgent review of safeguarding training.
“We recommend the provider review safeguarding training with staff as a matter of priority.” from the report
Inaccurate quality records
seriousSome audits, fire drill records and other documents did not appear to give a reliable picture of the home. Important discussions after safeguarding concerns were not always recorded.
“The manager did not ensure that records were always accurate and quality assurance systems did not identify areas for improvement.” from the report
Incomplete care plans
needs fixingSome monthly reviews referred to support plans that were not present. This made it difficult to tell from the records what support people needed in some areas.
“Some aspects of the care plans were not complete.” from the report
Training records
needs fixingRecords did not clearly show all the training staff had completed or when it needed renewal. The evidence for Care Certificate learning was also incomplete.
“Staff training records were not well maintained to evidence the training staff had completed and when it was due for renewal.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure two suitably trained staff are available throughout every night shift?
- 02How do you check that staff understand safeguarding risks and know how to report concerns?
- 03How are medicines stock levels and reordering dates checked so that medicines do not run out?
- 04How do you make sure risk assessments and care plans are updated promptly after incidents, falls or changes in need?
- 05What independent checks now show that audits, fire drill records and incident records are accurate?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, prompted by safeguarding information and repeated whistleblowing concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 May 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.
Every inspection of Abbey House - Morden
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Goodup from Requires improvementEffective: GoodResponsive: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2010.
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 Merton
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.