CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbeycroft Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found that environmental risks were not always assessed or managed. They also found omissions in records for prescribed creams, a controlled drugs counting error and some cleanliness issues.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no rating was given in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no rating was given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and checks had been completed but did not reliably identify or address problems. People also had limited opportunities to give their views about life in the home.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks were not always managed and quality checks were not effective.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 7 and 9 March 2023. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, staff, managers, relatives and a healthcare professional, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found risks such as an unassessed missing handrail, unsafe bedroom deadlocks and unprotected bedrails. They also found some cleanliness problems, medicines recording errors and weak action planning.
People said they felt safe and were mostly satisfied. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, recruitment checks were suitable, and there were enough staff on the inspection days. The home had already been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and has held this rating for four consecutive inspections.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and were mostly satisfied with the service. Relatives had no concerns about their family members' safety.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home, and they were mostly satisfied with the service provided.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns. The home had procedures to protect people from abuse and discrimination.
“Staff had completed training and were aware of the reporting procedures.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The home carried out appropriate checks before new staff started work.
“There were suitable arrangements for the recruitment of new staff. Appropriate checks had been carried out before new staff started work in the home.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards
Inspectors found the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Where needed, legal authorisations were in place.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
Environmental safety risks
seriousSome environmental risks had not been assessed or managed. These included a missing handrail, a build-up of discarded items, bedroom deadlocks and bedrails without protectors.
“The provider had failed to assess the risks to the health and safety of people receiving care and treatment and failed to do all that is practicable to mitigate the risks.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's audits did not always identify problems, and action plans were not made to address shortfalls. One audit incorrectly said all bedrails had protectors.
“The provider had failed to operate effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingThere were omissions in records for prescribed creams and an error in the controlled drugs register. The manager said these issues would be reviewed and corrected.
“However, we found some shortfalls in the administration records for prescribed creams and there was a counting error in the controlled drugs register.” from the report
Cleanliness
needs fixingMost areas were satisfactory, but one bathroom was heavily soiled, the smoking area was not regularly cleared and food was being prepared on an unsuitable surface. The bathroom was cleaned during the inspection.
“Whilst most areas of the home had a satisfactory standard of cleanliness, we noted a bathroom had been left heavily soiled, the smoking area had not been regularly cleared and staff were preparing food on an unsuitable surface in the dining room.” from the report
Limited resident involvement
minorThere was no evidence of residents' meetings during the previous 12 months. A satisfaction survey had been completed, but its results had not been collated or analysed.
“This meant people had limited opportunities to express their views about life in the home.” from the report
- 01Have the missing handrail, bedroom deadlocks and bedrail protector problems been fully corrected?
- 02What new checks make sure environmental risks are identified and acted on promptly?
- 03How are prescribed creams and controlled drugs now recorded and checked?
- 04Has the new staffing dependency tool been introduced, and how do you respond when people have to wait for help?
- 05Have regular residents' meetings started, and how are feedback and satisfaction survey results being used?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were not inspected during this visit and the overall rating used the previous inspection ratings for those areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 2023 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, August 2020
Rated Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found good safety but leadership was not yet fully established.
This was a focused inspection on 21 and 24 July 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found safer recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines procedures and improved infection control during the Covid-19 pandemic. People and relatives said they felt safe.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. A new manager had made improvements and created an action plan, but there was no registered manager and not enough evidence that the changes would last. The overall rating remained Requires Improvement.
At the previous inspection, the provider had breached Regulations 17 and 18. At this inspection, the provider was no longer in breach because improvements had been made.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to respond to possible abuse.
“People living in the home told us they felt safe” from the report
Safer recruitment
The provider had improved recruitment checks for staff employed since the previous inspection.
“All necessary checks and procedures had been completed.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines records were up to date, stocks were checked and staff had training and competency checks.
“We found records were up to date and medicines had been stored as they should be.” from the report
Infection control
Covid-19 procedures had been updated. Staff used protective equipment and the home was clean.
“We observed staff using this and maintaining safe practice.” from the report
Improved management
The new manager had introduced an action plan and audit checklist. People, relatives and staff expressed confidence in the manager.
“Management oversight of the quality of care and records had recently improved under the new manager.” from the report
Weekend staffing pressure
needs fixingSome people thought staffing could be difficult at weekends. Staff said they sometimes felt rushed because they had to cover work in the kitchen.
“Staff we spoke with felt able to support people safely but reported feeling rushed at the weekend due to sometimes having to cover in the kitchen.” from the report
Leadership not yet established
needs fixingThere was no registered manager. Inspectors said the new management arrangements had not been in place long enough to show that improvements were lasting.
“However, the manager had not had sufficient time to show continuous learning and sustained improvements.” from the report
Issues raised about food and activities
minorDuring the inspection, two people raised concerns about the food and the level of activities. The manager was asked to respond to these comments.
“During the inspection, two people raised issues about the food and the level of activities.” from the report
- 01How are staffing levels checked and managed at weekends, and how will staff avoid having to cover kitchen duties?
- 02Has the manager now registered with CQC?
- 03What progress has been made with the action plan, and how do you check that improvements are sustained?
- 04What changes have been made in response to concerns about food and activities?
- 05How are moving and handling techniques monitored to prevent a repeat of the incident described in the report?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only, following concerns about safe care, moving and handling and management oversight. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 August 2020 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 Abbeycroft Residential Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Abbeycroft Residential Care Home →
- August 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Abbeycroft Residential Care Home →
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.