CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbeyfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had risk assessments, trained staff and suitable safeguarding arrangements. Medicines and infection control were managed safely, although prescribed creams were not always clearly labelled with when they had been opened.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care was based on assessed needs and preferences. They were supported with health appointments, suitable diets, staff training and decisions made in their best interests.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, activities and the running of the home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's communication needs, preferences and changing needs. People chose activities and how to spend their time, but complaint records did not always show what action had been taken.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits, regular feedback and systems for reviewing care quality. Feedback about communication was mixed, with some staff reporting inconsistencies between team members.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Abbeyfield House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor record-keeping issues.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered in 2019. The inspection took place over 18, 20 and 21 May 2021. One inspector spoke with all four people living there, relatives and staff, observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely and had enough staff to meet their needs. Infection control arrangements were also suitable during the COVID-19 pandemic.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and access health care. Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships. Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and risks, and the home offered activities chosen by the people living there.
There were some small weaknesses. Prescribed creams were not always marked with their opening dates, some complaint records did not show the action taken, and some staff reported inconsistent communication. The manager said these issues would be addressed.
People were kept safe
Staff understood people's risks and how to respond. Incidents were reviewed, and the home changed its approach when it identified a trigger for distress.
“analysis of a period of incidents had identified a specific trigger that was causing a person distress.” from the report
Respectful, person-centred care
People were treated with dignity and supported to make choices. Staff encouraged independence in everyday tasks such as shopping, preparing meals and cleaning rooms.
“People were supported to express their views and were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Good health support
People had health action plans and were supported to attend medical and dental appointments. Staff worked with health professionals and reduced some behaviour-related medicines.
“People were supported to access healthcare services which had resulted in people experiencing healthier lives.” from the report
Activities and communication
People chose activities and how to spend their time. Information such as complaints procedures and fire evacuation plans was available in accessible formats.
“People had individual weekly plans for activities they were involved in choosing.” from the report
Cream labels
needs fixingSome prescribed creams did not clearly show when they had been opened. This made it harder for staff to know when they would expire, although the manager took immediate action.
“people's prescribed creams were not always clearly labelled to detail when they had been opened.” from the report
Complaint records
minorThe home had a complaints process, but records did not always explain what action had been taken after concerns were raised.
“However, records didn't always detail the actions taken.” from the report
Staff communication
minorFeedback was mixed. Some staff said communication between team members was inconsistent, although the process for raising issues had recently been reviewed.
“some staff had experienced inconsistencies in communication between team members.” from the report
- 01How do you now label prescribed creams, including recording when each cream was opened?
- 02How are concerns and complaints recorded, including the action taken and the outcome?
- 03What changes have been made to improve communication between staff members?
- 04What activities and community opportunities are currently available to people?
- 05How will my relative be involved in care reviews and decisions about their support?
This was the first comprehensive inspection and covered all five ratings, including infection prevention and control; the provider could not complete its Provider Information Return because of technical problems. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 June 2021 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
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 April 2019.
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 Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.