CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbey Lea Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control, with cleaning records and audits needing further development.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found the home was clean, staff used protective equipment properly, and people and staff had symptom checks and regular testing. Visitor restrictions and safe visiting arrangements were in place.
The home was somewhat assured on the layout and hygiene systems because its recording and auditing of cleaning and infection control needed further development. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and without unpleasant smells. High-risk areas such as door handles and grab rails were cleaned regularly.
“The service was clean and free from malodours.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff followed guidance and used PPE appropriately to help protect themselves and residents.
“Staff followed government guidance and used personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately to help keep them and the people they supported safe.” from the report
Testing and isolation
Residents and staff were screened and had regular testing. Isolation procedures were used when needed.
“Staff and people who used the service were screened for signs and symptoms of COVID-19.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Visitor restrictions followed government guidance, with a process for essential visits.
“There was a procedure to safely allow essential visitors into the service.” from the report
Cleaning records and checks
needs fixingInspectors recommended developing the systems for recording and auditing cleaning and infection control practices. This was the only area where inspectors were not fully assured.
“We recommended the provider continue to develop their systems and processes for recording and auditing cleaning and IPC practices.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and audit cleaning and infection control practices?
- 02How often are high-risk areas such as door handles and grab rails cleaned and checked?
- 03How do you currently test residents and staff for COVID-19 and manage isolation when needed?
- 04What are the current rules for visiting, including essential visits?
- 05How do you make sure new residents are admitted safely and infection outbreaks are managed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with a minor issue about written feedback from quality checks.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 27 September 2017. The inspector spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and health professionals. They also observed care, reviewed records and looked around the home.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training and good support with health, food and drink.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Their care plans reflected their needs, and they had many activities, choices and links with family and the community. The home had effective complaints and quality-checking systems, although written feedback to people who contributed to checks was not yet formalised.
The home was still rated Good, the same as at the October 2015 inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicines were obtained in time, stored safely, given on time and recorded correctly. Controlled drugs were also safely managed.
“Medicines were obtained in a timely way so that people did not run out of them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and helpful. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“Staff were extremely pleasant and kind towards people but also professional.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. Staff adapted support to people's moods, interests and abilities.
“Care plans were person-centred and contained information that had been obtained from people, their relatives and from careful observation” from the report
Activities and family links
People could take part in activities, daily tasks and social events if they wished. Families were encouraged to visit and join in.
“People engaged in an abundance of pastimes, activities and occupation and were encouraged to maintain many of their daily living skills and abilities.” from the report
Written feedback from quality checks
minorThe home collected surveys and used the results, but it did not formally write back to people who contributed. This was discussed with the manager, who said it would be developed after the next checks.
“there was no formal written feedback to contributors of the quality assurance system.” from the report
- 01How will you provide written feedback to people and families who take part in surveys and quality checks?
- 02How would you support my relative's specific dementia, mobility, falls or swallowing needs?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty at different times of day and night?
- 04How do you involve relatives in decisions about changes in care needs and healthcare appointments?
- 05What activities and daily tasks could my relative choose to take part in?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and providing an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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 Lea Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.