CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbey Rose
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Abbey Rose: Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with a concern about indoor surveillance.
The inspection was unannounced on 16 October 2018 and continued as an announced visit on 17 October. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found trained staff, safe medicines management, enough staff, personalised care and positive relationships with people and families.
The home had improved since the September 2017 inspection. Medicines management, quality monitoring and social activities had improved. However, cameras were being used in communal areas and corridors without people and relatives being consulted or asked for consent.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered by trained staff and records and storage were checked. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“Medicines were managed safely and administered by staff who had received training.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate kindly, respect privacy and dignity, and support people to make choices and remain independent.
“We observed that all staff supported people in ways which were kind and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and life histories. Families were involved in reviews and staff responded when needs changed.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had employed an activities coordinator and used volunteers and visiting entertainers. People told inspectors they enjoyed the activities.
“During this inspection we found that improvements had been made.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Audits covered areas such as nutrition, skin care, care plans and equipment. Inspectors found that improvement actions were followed up promptly.
“Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and up to date.” from the report
Indoor surveillance
needs fixingCameras were used in communal areas and corridors, but people and relatives had not been consulted or asked for consent. Inspectors recommended that the home check whether this use was lawful, fair and proportionate.
“Consent was not sought and consultations had not been held with people and relatives for the use of overt surveillance within the home.” from the report
- 01Are cameras still used inside the home, and in which areas?
- 02How were people and relatives consulted about the cameras after the inspection?
- 03Was consent obtained from people who could make that decision, and what happened if someone did not consent?
- 04How are medicines checked now, following the improvements identified since the previous inspection?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how are people's individual interests used to plan them?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but serious medicines, risk management and activity concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 and 11 September 2017. Two inspectors visited the home, which had 20 people living there and could provide care for up to 24 people.
The home was rated Good for effective care and caring. Staff were trained and supported, people's food and healthcare needs were met, and inspectors saw kind and respectful care. People's rights and choices were generally respected.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe care, responsiveness and leadership. Medicines were not always ordered, given or recorded safely. Some risks were not properly assessed, activities were limited, and checks by managers did not identify or fix important problems. The report found breaches of two regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People and families spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff building relaxed, friendly relationships and respecting people's choices and dignity.
“Staff were kind, caring and patient and had a relaxed, friendly, professional relationship with people.” from the report
Trained and supported staff
Staff received induction, relevant training, supervision and appraisals. They told inspectors they felt supported by managers.
“People were supported by staff who had an appropriate induction and on-going training and supervision.” from the report
Food and healthcare
The home understood people's dietary needs, including allergies and fortified diets. People could access healthcare when needed.
“People's eating and drinking needs were understood and met.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans explained people's assessed needs and how staff should support them. Plans were reviewed monthly and when needed.
“Care and support plans contained detailed information explaining how people wanted to have their care provided and was reviewed regularly.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome people did not receive medicines when needed. Records contained errors, medicines were not always given with safe timing, and untrained staff had administered medicines.
“People were at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Some risks were not assessed
seriousEmerging risks, including aggressive behaviour, did not always lead to a risk assessment, care plan or incident report.
“People were at risk of avoidable harm as risk assessments were not always completed in response to identified emerging risk.” from the report
Too few activities
needs fixingPeople had long periods without stimulation. The home had been without an activities organiser since April 2017, and feedback about this had not led to improvement by the inspection.
“People had limited opportunities for social activity which meant that there were large periods of time without any stimulation.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify important medicine and risk problems. The provider also did not ensure all required incidents were reported to CQC.
“Systems and processes were not effectively monitoring and reducing risks to people related to their health and welfare.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every medicine is available, given at the right time and recorded correctly?
- 02How do you check that only staff who are trained and assessed as competent administer medicines, including at night?
- 03How are new or changing risks identified, assessed and recorded in people's care plans?
- 04What activities are now available, and how do you support people who want to go out into the community?
- 05How do your audits identify problems and show that complaints and feedback have led to action?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection was in August 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 Rose
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 November 2012.
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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.