CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbeyfield Residential Care Home - Castle Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, safe admissions and visits. They were also assured that measures were in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Abbeyfield Residential Care Home - Castle Farm was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and steps to support people's wellbeing.
This was a targeted inspection on 16 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The visit was announced the day before.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included the use of personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing, safe admissions and arrangements for visits. They were also assured that the home was meeting the vaccination requirements then in force.
The report highlights efforts to reduce the effects of isolation, including more activities and a visiting pianist. It also says agency staff had not been needed during the pandemic. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Support for wellbeing
The manager recognised the effect of isolation and restrictions and increased meaningful activities, including by reintroducing a visiting pianist and employing another activities organiser.
“The registered manager recognised the impact periods of isolation and restrictions had had on people's wellbeing.” from the report
Continuity of staff
The home maintained continuity of care and did not need agency staff during the pandemic.
“Staff worked hard to provide high levels of continuity of care, ensuring agency staff had not been required at any point during the pandemic.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing, safe admissions and infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting arrangements working now, and what would happen if there were an infection outbreak?
- 02How do you currently manage staffing pressures, and do you need agency staff?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested when required, and how is PPE used?
- 04What activities are available now, including for people living with dementia?
- 05How do you keep the infection prevention and control policy up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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, October 2019
Abbeyfield Residential Care Home - Castle Farm was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with two records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 September 2019. The inspectors spoke with eight people living at the home, one family member and four staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good safeguarding arrangements.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported people's choices, independence, health needs and activities. The home had effective systems for listening to people, handling complaints and checking the quality of care.
Two issues were identified and the manager agreed to put them right. One hospital checklist contained inaccurate information, and one person at risk of pressure damage did not have a specific pressure care plan. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published on 25 March 2017.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were administered and stored safely, with accurate records and regular audits.
“Medicine administration records were accurate, up to date and audited regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them kindly and respected their dignity, privacy and independence. Care records described what people could do for themselves.
“People told us staff respected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to stay active, pursue interests and maintain links with the local community. Staff helped people attend appointments, go shopping and socialise.
“People lived full and active lives and were protected from social isolation.” from the report
Good leadership and listening
The home used meetings and questionnaires to seek views from people, relatives, visitors and staff. Its quality monitoring systems were effective.
“People were able to feed back on the quality of the service.” from the report
Inaccurate hospital information
needs fixingOne person's hospital checklist contained inaccurate information. The manager agreed to correct it, so families should ask how this was checked and resolved.
“One person's hospital checklist contained inaccurate information.” from the report
Missing pressure care plan
needs fixingOne person was at risk of pressure damage but did not have a specific pressure care plan. The manager agreed to put one in place.
“Although a risk assessment was in place, they did not have a specific pressure care plan.” from the report
- 01How was the inaccurate hospital checklist corrected, and how do you check that hospital information remains up to date?
- 02What specific pressure care plan was put in place, and how is it reviewed?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels continue to meet people's individual needs?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How would my relative and family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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 Residential Care Home - Castle Farm
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Abbeyfield Residential Care Home - Castle Farm →
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Abbeyfield Residential Care Home - Castle Farm →
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £1,160 a week. 30 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in 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.