CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbeyfield House - Stockport
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment, medicine checks and infection control arrangements. Inspectors identified issues with unsecured wardrobes and medicine patch records, and the home acted during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on assessed needs and preferences. People received support with food, drink and healthcare, and staff were trained and supervised, although some training compliance needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people in decisions and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication needs were supported. People had access to activities, community links and support to maintain relationships and interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, meetings and systems for responding to concerns and improving care. People, families and staff spoke positively about the way the home was managed.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but identified some medicine records and training checks needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 November 2023. One inspector reviewed the home, watched care, spoke with five people, two relatives and eight staff, and checked care, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicine systems, clean surroundings and good support with eating, drinking and healthcare.
People described kind and respectful care. Staff knew people well, supported personal choices and independence, and provided activities based on people's interests. Families and staff also spoke positively about the home manager and how the home was run.
Inspectors found some shortfalls during the visit. Some wardrobes were not secured to the wall, records did not always show that medicine patches were rotated correctly, and compliance with some training needed improvement. The home took immediate action on the identified issues.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were available, took time to talk with people and provided care in a patient and unhurried way.
“There were sufficient staff employed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well and respected their choices, privacy and dignity. Staff also encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“People told us they were very well treated.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and adapted communication and activities to suit them.
“People told us they were receiving personalised care which met their needs.” from the report
Good activities
The home offered group and one-to-one activities based on people's interests. It also worked with a local school and faith groups to help reduce isolation.
“Groups and one to one activities were provided, based on people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Active oversight
The home used audits and checks to identify problems and make improvements. Inspectors found that shortfalls were addressed quickly.
“These were used to identify any shortfalls, which were quickly addressed, and identify areas for improvement.” from the report
Unsecured wardrobes
seriousSome wardrobes were not suitably secured to the wall when inspected. The manager arranged immediate checks and maintenance to address this.
“During the inspection we fed back that some wardrobes were not suitably secured to the wall.” from the report
Medicine patch records
needs fixingRecords did not always show enough information to confirm that skin patches were being rotated in line with the manufacturer's guidance. The home introduced an appropriate system during the inspection.
“However, the records did not always provide sufficient information to ensure manufacturer's guidance, relating to the frequency of patch rotation to protect the skin from irritation, was being followed.” from the report
Training compliance
needs fixingSome areas of staff training did not meet the expected level of compliance. This was discussed with the manager.
“There were some areas of training where compliance needed improving and this was discussed with the manager.” from the report
- 01Have all wardrobes now been checked and securely fixed to the wall?
- 02How do you now record and check the rotation of medicine patches?
- 03Which areas of staff training had lower compliance, and has this now been improved?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the registration process is completed?
- 05How will you continue to involve families in reviewing and developing care?
This inspection looked at the premises and care provided and rated all five CQC areas; it reviewed three full care plans and three staff files rather than every record. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements made after earlier concerns about risk and management.
The inspection was unannounced on 28 November and 4 December 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, visitors and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, training, staffing records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, medicines were managed properly, staff were trained and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
Care was described as kind, respectful and person-centred. Records gave staff detailed information about people's needs and choices. The home had improved since the previous comprehensive inspection, when it had breached regulations about risk, feedback and quality assurance.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw calm interactions and staff taking time to ask people what they wanted. People were supported to make choices and remain independent.
“We found the staff to be patient, caring, respectful and kind. We observed relaxed and friendly interactions.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records checked by inspectors were complete. Staff training and competency checks were in place.
“All MAR we reviewed were fully completed to confirm that people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Detailed care plans
Care records included people's routines, preferences, health needs, communication and independence. They were reviewed and updated when needs changed.
“They gave information about things that were important to and for the person including life history, routines, mental capacity, social interests, preferences, nutrition, how they wanted to be supported” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had introduced regular checks and audits covering areas such as safety, infection control, medicines, incidents and care records. This addressed earlier concerns about quality assurance.
“We found there were good systems of weekly, monthly and annual quality assurance check and audits.” from the report
Moving and handling incident
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, two staff appeared to take a person's weight during a transfer, which could have caused harm. The assessment was updated immediately and a standing aid was used on the second day.
“They put their hands under the person's shoulders and appeared to take the persons weight. This could potentially cause harm to the person or the staff.” from the report
DoLS application not yet made
needs fixingOne person's records showed they lacked capacity for several decisions. A required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation had not been requested at the time of inspection, although the manager said one would be submitted.
“We noted that at the time of our inspection a DoLS authorisation had not been requested for this person.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the unsafe-looking transfer, and how do you check that all staff use the correct moving and handling equipment?
- 02Was the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application submitted, and what is the current position?
- 03The report says some people sometimes waited for staff after pressing their buzzer. How quickly should people expect help, and how is this monitored?
- 04What further work was identified in the fire risk assessment, and has all of it now been completed?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in care plan reviews, meetings and decisions about activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; it also checked whether improvements had been made after the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 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.
Every inspection of Abbeyfield House - Stockport
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Abbeyfield House - Stockport →
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Abbeyfield House - Stockport →
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 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.