CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Abbeycrest Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks were assessed and reviewed. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines management, clean areas and suitable infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on best practice and people's needs. Staff had relevant training, people received support with food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw people treated politely, with dignity, privacy and respect for their choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and were updated when needs changed. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an established management structure and quality checks. People, relatives and staff said the home was well managed, and the service worked with other professionals.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Abbeycrest Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some earlier medicines recording gaps.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 1 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with eight people, eight relatives and 10 staff. They observed care, looked around the home, checked 11 care records and nine medicines records, and reviewed management documents.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings and suitable infection control. They found that staff understood people's risks and knew how to report concerns.
People received care based on their needs and choices. Staff supported people with food, healthcare, communication, activities and personal decisions. People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring.
The home had systems to check quality and make improvements. A medicines audit had found some gaps in signatures on medicines charts before the inspection. Staff were reminded about this, and inspectors found no recording issues during their visit.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke very positively about staff. Inspectors also saw polite and respectful interactions.
“Staff are so kind, I can't praise them enough. I must emphasise how kind the carers are, carers are always smiling, very gentle.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely during the inspection.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and the service had safe medicine storage systems in place.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and changing needs. People and relatives were involved in planning care.
“Care records were individualised and detailed. They were updated when any changes were noted.” from the report
Good food and support
The home offered a choice of food and supported people to eat and drink enough. Staff did not rush people during meals.
“The service provided good quality food with a variety of different options to choose from each day.” from the report
Strong teamwork and learning
Staff received training and support, and the home worked with healthcare professionals. Quality checks were used to identify and address improvements.
“The provider had quality assurance including, audits of care plans, medicine records and analysis of accidents and incidents.” from the report
Earlier medicines recording gaps
minorA recent audit had found occasional missing signatures on medicines administration charts. Staff were reminded, and inspectors found no issues during the inspection.
“A recent medicines audit had highlighted there were sometimes gaps of signatures on the MAR charts.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every medicine given is signed for on the medicines administration chart?
- 02How will you involve me and my relative in reviewing the care plan when their needs or preferences change?
- 03What training do staff have for my relative's specific health, communication or dementia needs?
- 04What activities are available for people who do not enjoy group activities?
- 05How will you keep me informed about concerns, complaints or changes in my relative's care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some capacity assessment records still being improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 March 2017. The inspection included an inspector, a dementia specialist and an expert by experience. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicine records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staffing was sufficient and risks were assessed.
People were supported by trained staff and received suitable food, drink and healthcare. Staff were kind and respectful, care plans gave clear guidance, relatives were involved, and complaints were dealt with promptly.
The home was already rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good. Inspectors noted that decision-specific mental capacity assessments were not always recorded, but the provider was trialling a new document to improve this.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines records were accurate and complete, and staff administering medicines had training and regular competency checks. Inspectors also found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly.
“Medicines were managed safely. Records relating to the administration of medicines were accurate and complete.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff showed warmth, patience and respect. They knew how to respond when someone became anxious and respected people's privacy, names and choices.
“There was a cheerful and relaxed atmosphere throughout the inspection.” from the report
Clear, personalised care
Care plans gave staff practical instructions about people's needs and were updated when circumstances changed. Inspectors saw staff following the guidance effectively.
“People's care plans gave clear guidance to staff in how to support people.” from the report
Good management and feedback
The management team used audits, surveys and relatives' meetings to check the service and identify improvements. Staff said they felt valued and listened to.
“There were systems in place to effectively monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Capacity assessment records
needs fixingSome records did not always include a decision-specific mental capacity assessment. The provider was trialling a new document intended to prompt these assessments where needed.
“However, we found that there were not always decision specific capacity assessments.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure a mental capacity assessment is completed for each specific decision where it is needed?
- 02How do you check that medicines records remain accurate and complete for every person?
- 03How do you decide whether there are enough staff at different times of day and night?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 05What improvements were made to the gardens following feedback from people and relatives?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and providing an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 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 Abbeycrest Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 July 2013.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.