CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Abbeyfield House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some furniture was not secured, some radiators were not covered, and worn or taped carpets could create trip hazards. Medicines were being given, but storage and some records were not always suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support that met their needs and were helped with food, drink, health care and choices. However, training and supervision records did not show consistently that staff had completed all relevant training or received regular support.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, promoted independence and offered meaningful choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with communication, activities, holidays, volunteering and relationships. Some records did not clearly show what action had been taken after concerns were raised.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits had found some problems, but environmental improvements were delayed and some record-keeping and training issues were not identified or resolved effectively. The provider was responsive to feedback and was introducing electronic care records.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks, medicines records and management systems were not always effective.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 6 December 2023 and 8 January 2024. One inspector visited, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, staff files and management records.
People were treated kindly and supported to make choices, stay active and take part in community life. Staff knew people well, and the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
The home was not always safe or well-led. Inspectors found environmental risks, medicines storage and recording problems, gaps in training oversight, and records that were not always complete. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated kindly and staff were patient, respectful and supportive. Staff knew people's needs and promoted their dignity and independence.
“We observed staff were kind, caring and patient when supporting people with their needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences, and people were involved in daily decisions and care reviews. Staff supported people to follow interests and take part in community activities.
“The care is very personalised. Staff know [family members] likes and dislikes.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make their own decisions where possible. Staff used least restrictive approaches and encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“We observed staff consistently offer people meaningful choices and respected people's decisions.” from the report
Good relationships and activities
People were supported to maintain relationships, go on holidays, volunteer and join activities at the home and in the community.
“Staff told us they supported people to go out and engage in the community as much as possible, with some people engaging in regular volunteering roles.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousNot all large furniture was secured and some radiators were uncovered. Torn carpets had been taped and some safety checks were not completed consistently.
“Certain areas of carpet were taped as they were ripped and torn and would otherwise have been a trip hazard.” from the report
Medicines storage and records
seriousSome medicines were not stored properly, and records for creams, thickened drinks and occasional medicines were incomplete or lacked enough detail.
“Medicines were not always being suitably stored as there was insufficient storage in the clinic room for internal and external medicines to be stored separately.” from the report
Training and supervision oversight
needs fixingThe home did not have effective oversight to show that staff had completed all relevant training or received regular supervision. This included training linked to swallowing difficulties, autism and learning disabilities.
“The training systems did not ensure that staff accessed the training relevant to their roles.” from the report
Incomplete records and delayed action
seriousRecords did not always show how people's needs were being met. Management checks had identified some issues, but improvements were not always completed promptly or sustained.
“The provider did not have suitable systems to ensure the quality and safety of the service and that accurate records were being kept.” from the report
- 01What has been done to secure furniture, cover radiators and replace or repair the damaged carpets?
- 02How are medicines now stored, including internal and external medicines, and how are creams and thickened drinks recorded?
- 03How do you check that every staff member has completed the training needed for people's specific conditions?
- 04How often are staff receiving supervision, and how do you make sure this is maintained?
- 05What changes have been made through the new electronic care record system, and how will you check that records are accurate?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the premises, care and management of the home and assessed all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2024 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had safe infection prevention and control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 17 November 2020. This was an announced thematic review during the coronavirus pandemic, focused on infection prevention and control.
They were assured that the home managed visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks safely. The infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
Inspectors also found good examples of support during lockdown. The home helped people keep close family links, planned for safe isolation and introduced extra cleaning and wellbeing measures for staff and residents.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall rating or ratings for care areas such as effectiveness, caring, responsiveness or leadership.
Family contact
The home supported people to keep close links with their families during lockdown and recorded their experiences for the future.
“The service had ensured people had maintained very close links with their families.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had arrangements for safely isolating people during an outbreak. Each person had a bedroom and bathroom, and walkie talkies helped people stay in contact.
“The service had plans in place to ensure people could be safely isolated in the event of an outbreak.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, supported testing, followed social distancing rules and had suitable cleaning arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Updated plans
The home's coronavirus and contingency plans were detailed and kept up to date.
“The home's Covid-19 and contingency plans were comprehensive and up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the November 2020 inspection?
- 02How would you safely isolate residents if there were an infection outbreak?
- 03How do you support people who become anxious about Covid-19 testing or wearing PPE?
- 04How often are touch points such as door handles and light switches cleaned?
- 05How do you keep families informed and maintain contact if visiting is restricted?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the home was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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 Abbeyfield House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 April 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.