CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbeyfield Lear House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Abbeyfield Lear House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2022. Inspectors gave 24 hours' notice and looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing admissions and preventing infections. The home was also meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
People were helped to stay in touch with family and friends through video calls and a visiting pod. Individual COVID-19 risk assessments and care plans were in place, including adjustments for people who had to isolate.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas of care.
Family contact
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives and friends through online video calls and a specially adapted visiting pod.
“People were supported to maintain contact with family and friends in creative ways.” from the report
Support during isolation
Each person had an individual COVID-19 risk assessment and care plan. Adjustments were made to reduce distress or disruption during isolation.
“Everyone living in the home had an individual COVID-19 risk assessment and care plan.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's use of PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing, admissions and infection outbreak arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had arrangements allowing people to see and talk to visitors without visitors entering the building.
“This was accessed directly by its own door and there was a plastic screen and intercom system so people could see and talk to visitors without them entering the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures affecting people's care now?
- 02How do you support people who need to isolate, and how do you reduce distress during isolation?
- 03How are visits arranged now, and what happens if infection restrictions change?
- 04How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination requirements?
- 05How do you make sure PPE, testing and infection outbreak procedures remain effective?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 2022 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, June 2019
Abbeyfield Lear House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 15 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, family members and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, safety checks, complaints and quality monitoring.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff knew them well. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, clean premises and accurate risk and emergency evacuation records.
Inspectors found warm relationships between staff and people. Care was personalised, people were supported with food, drink, health care and activities, and people were offered choice. The home had improved its records and monitoring systems since the previous inspection, which had rated it Requires improvement.
Safer risk and medicines management
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and emergency evacuation information was accurate.
“Medicines were now safely managed by suitably trained staff. Medicine administration records (MARs) were completed correctly.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and provided support in a warm, patient and respectful way. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.
“Staff were observed to be kind, caring and compassionate towards people and provided support when needed or asked for.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's needs and preferences, and staff responded to people in the way they wanted.
“People received person-centred care that was based on their individual needs.” from the report
Good staffing and training
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff. Staff received induction, ongoing training and regular support.
“There were enough suitably qualified and skilled staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Improved leadership and checks
The home had introduced better checks on care records and other parts of the service after the previous inspection.
“Other effective systems were now in place to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
One care plan was updated late
needs fixingOne person's needs had changed, but their care plan was not updated promptly. Staff were told about the change, and the records were updated during the inspection.
“However where one person's needs had changed their care plan had not been updated in a timely manner.” from the report
Some uncertainty about management roles
minorMost people knew the registered manager, but some were unsure because there was also a general manager. Everyone spoken with knew who to contact about concerns.
“Most people knew who the registered manager but some were unsure due to the role of the general manager.” from the report
- 01How quickly will you update my relative's care plan if their needs change?
- 02Who will be my main contact, and what are the different roles of the registered manager and general manager?
- 03How are medicines, medicine records and 'as required' medicines checked?
- 04How would you safely evacuate my relative in an emergency, and when was their evacuation plan last reviewed?
- 05What activities and community visits would match my relative's interests and preferences?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection that looked at the premises and care provided and rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 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.
Every inspection of Abbeyfield Lear House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2010.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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 £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.