CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbeyfield Silverdale & District Society Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention measures, including visitors, distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, outbreak management and the infection control policy. They said additional equipment might help reduce infection risks.
- 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, May 2021
Abbeyfield Silverdale & District Society Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, with some equipment improvements suggested.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 April 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full range of care quality.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, outbreaks and infection control policies safely. The home was clean and uncluttered, and staff had infection control training.
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives using tablets, telephones and visiting facilities. They were also supported with health advice and vaccination decisions.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or a standard quality rating for each of the five areas of care.
Staff training
Staff had access to detailed infection control training and said they felt confident using what they had learned.
“The registered manager had ensured staff could access comprehensive and informative training in various aspects of infection control.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and uncluttered, with checks and audits to identify and act on any cleaning issues.
“The environment and equipment had been arranged to minimise the risk of infection and was clean and clutter free.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19. The home supported people to decide whether to take part in vaccination, with best-interest discussions planned where needed.
“People and staff were taking part in the vaccination programme.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home supported people to stay in contact with loved ones using electronic devices and had facilities for face-to-face visits.
“Staff supported people to use electronic tablets and telephones to maintain contact with loved ones.” from the report
Further equipment may be needed
minorInspectors thought additional equipment could help reduce the risk of infection spreading. They signposted the home to resources, but the report does not say whether the equipment was later provided.
“We noted additional equipment may be beneficial to reduce the risk and spread of infection and have signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What additional equipment did inspectors think would be beneficial, and has it now been provided?
- 02How does the home currently check visitors and manage the risk of infection spreading?
- 03How are people supported to keep in touch with relatives, including face-to-face visits?
- 04How are vaccination decisions recorded when a person cannot make the decision themselves?
- 05How often are people and staff tested, and how are positive results or outbreaks managed?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not provide a full assessment of the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 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.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Abbeyfield Silverdale & District Society Limited was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and quality checks needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 17 and 23 April 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff, the manager and the provider. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and safety records.
The home was supporting 21 people, with space for up to 22. Inspectors found people felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Medicines were given safely, staffing was considered sufficient, meals met people's choices, and people could access healthcare and activities.
The home was introducing electronic care records. One record needed updating, and some computer-generated information was not personal enough. Some quality checks and investigations were also not recorded fully. The inspectors made recommendations about improving these records and checks.
The overall rating was Good, as were the ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The rating remained Good from the previous inspection in April 2016.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Privacy and dignity were respected during personal care.
“All the staff are exceptionally kind and gentle.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were administered correctly in the sample checked. People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff to provide help promptly.
“We observed medicines being administered and found people were supported to take their medicines and records were completed at the time of administration.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in decisions about their care and could choose what and where to eat. Relatives said they were included when decisions were needed.
“We saw consent was sought before care and support was given.” from the report
Activities and personal support
People were offered activities that interested them, including yoga and creative activities. Care plans included individual mobility, safety and communication needs.
“This demonstrated people were supported to take part in activities that were meaningful to them to minimise the risk of social isolation.” from the report
Care records needed improvement
needs fixingOne care record was out of date, and some standard computer-generated statements were not personal enough. The record was updated before the inspection ended, but the home was asked to improve how people's needs and wishes were documented.
“We noted one care record required updating.” from the report
Incomplete quality records
needs fixingThe manager carried out checks and investigations, but some were not documented. This meant action plans were not always developed or recorded.
“We noted some of the checks were not documented, therefore action plans were not developed.” from the report
- 01How has the electronic care record system been improved so that each person's needs and wishes are recorded in a personal way?
- 02How do you now audit care records and make sure identified actions are completed?
- 03How are accidents, incidents and investigations recorded, and how do you check that lessons have been acted on?
- 04What activities are currently offered, and how are they matched to each person's interests and abilities?
- 05How do you involve residents and relatives when care plans or health needs change?
This was an overall inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, the premises, medicines, staffing, records and management; the previous inspection in April 2016 had also rated the home Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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 Silverdale & District Society Limited
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Abbeyfield Silverdale & District Society Limited →
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Abbeyfield Silverdale & District Society Limited →
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.