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.
- Safe?
- Good
- The home had safeguarding systems, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines processes. However, some people did not always feel safe when others experienced emotional distress, and some night staff felt staffing was not always enough during a crisis.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does not give a new rating for it.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does not give a new rating for it.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does not give a new rating for it.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and approachable, and people and staff were involved in improving the home. Quality checks, an improvement plan and partnership work with other professionals were in place.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Abbey House was rated Good; inspectors found person-centred support, but some people did not always feel safe and night staffing was a concern.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 29 July 2022. It followed safeguarding concerns and looked only at Safe and Well-led. The inspector spoke with five people, six staff members, seven relatives and one professional, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was clean, safe and suitable for people's sensory and physical needs. Staff understood safeguarding, medicines were managed safely, and accidents and incidents were investigated. People were supported to make choices, manage risks and develop their independence wherever possible.
Feedback about safety was mixed. Emotional distress experienced by some people sometimes affected others, and some relatives were concerned about whether the mix of people living together was suitable. The home had measures in place and was reviewing this, but some night staff said staffing and support were not always enough during a crisis.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did Safe and Well-led. The other three areas were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices, take positive risks and reduce restrictions. People were involved in managing their own risks and developing their care plans.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Safe environment
The home was described as safe, clean and well equipped, with facilities suited to people's sensory and physical needs.
“People's care and support was provided in a safe, clean and well-equipped environment.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home recorded and investigated accidents and incidents, shared learning with staff and used reviews to reduce the chance of incidents happening again.
“Lessons learned were shared with the whole team and the wider organisation.” from the report
Visible leadership
People and staff knew the manager and could approach them. The home had quality checks, an improvement plan and an open approach to feedback.
“We observed the open-door policy in place within the service.” from the report
Professional partnerships
The home worked with health professionals, the police and a specialist organisation to develop support and training for people with Prader-Willi syndrome.
“The management and staff team worked in partnership with a variety of healthcare professionals and had developed good working relationships which supported positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Some people did not always feel safe
seriousSome people experienced emotional distress that affected other people's wellbeing. The home had introduced measures and was reviewing whether the mix of people living there was suitable.
“There were times people living at the service experienced emotional distress which impacted on other people's physical and emotional wellbeing and they told us that when this happened, they did not always feel safe.” from the report
Night staffing and support
needs fixingSome night staff felt staffing was not always enough when someone was in crisis or several people were awake. They also said more specific training, support and a fuller induction for night agency workers would help.
“some staff told us they felt the staffing levels at night were not always enough to meet people's needs when a person experienced a crisis.” from the report
Repairs still under way
minorSome maintenance work had not yet been completed, including flooring in shared areas and the electric gate. One person sometimes had to wait for help to open the gate.
“one person told us they had to wait sometimes for support to open the gate when they wanted to use it whilst they were waiting for it to be fixed.” from the report
- 01How do you decide whether the current mix of people living here is safe and suitable for my relative?
- 02What extra staffing is available at night when someone is in crisis or several people are awake?
- 03What additional training and support do night staff and night agency workers now receive?
- 04Has the electric gate been repaired, and can residents use it when they choose?
- 05What are the current ratings and recent evidence for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected at this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led following safeguarding concerns; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 October 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one family complaint still unresolved.
This was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. Inspectors visited without notice on 17 January 2019, spoke with people, staff, families and a local authority, and reviewed care records, medicines, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home supports people living with Prader-Willi syndrome and associated learning disabilities. Inspectors found good arrangements for managing food, weight, medicines and other risks. People were supported to make choices, stay active and become more independent.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says there were no concerns identified at this inspection, and the home will be re-inspected within the usual published timeframe for services rated Good.
Specialist food and weight support
The home understood the particular risks around eating and weight for people with Prader-Willi syndrome. Diets were planned with professional input and people's weight was monitored weekly.
“People were supported to follow a calorie controlled diet to maintain a healthy weight.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were involved in planning their routines and care. They were supported to travel, shop, take part in activities and work towards personal goals.
“The service promoted people's independence and put them at the centre of the care and support they provided.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff treated people as equals and respected their dignity, choices and individual needs.
“Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Active lifestyles and interests
People could take part in activities such as swimming, horse riding, gym sessions, walks and volunteering. The home also supported people's interests in animals and hobbies.
“People were supported to explore activities and hobbies which interested them and were encouraged to try new things.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The home was clean and tidy. Inspectors found appropriate arrangements for infection control and secure storage of medicines and hazardous substances.
“The home was very clean and tidy throughout.” from the report
Complaint not yet resolved
needs fixingAfter the inspection, a family of someone who had moved out raised concerns about the quality of care. The report says the complaint had not yet been resolved satisfactorily.
“They expressed their concerns about the quality of care and had an ongoing complaint with the service. The service had followed their complaints process, though this had not yet been resolved satisfactorily.” from the report
Staff retention
minorThe manager reported problems retaining staff because the service was specialised and different from other homes. New staff had been recruited and agency staff were used when needed.
“The registered manager told us they had had problems retaining staff. They felt this was due to the service being specialised and the work is very different from other homes.” from the report
Home larger than current guidance
minorThe home could accommodate up to eight people. Inspectors noted that this was larger than current best practice guidance, although they said the design fitted the surrounding residential area.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance. However the building design fitted into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size.” from the report
- 01How do you manage the risks of overeating, choking and consuming non-edible substances for my relative?
- 02How many permanent staff currently work here, and how often are agency staff used?
- 03What has been learned from the complaint that was still unresolved after the inspection?
- 04How will my relative be involved in planning their meals, activities, routines and personal goals?
- 05How do you support people to become more independent while keeping them safe?
This was a planned first inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care records, medicines, staffing, complaints and quality systems. 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.
Every inspection of Abbey House
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.