Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Abbeygate

Goodpublished 3 December 2025, 10 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2022

Abbeygate was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks from exposed pipes and weaknesses in checks and oversight.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 and 15 February 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led, spoke with people, staff, relatives and a visitor, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.

On the first day, inspectors found exposed hot pipes in shared areas and corridors. These could have caused burns or scalds. They also found clutter that made cleaning difficult and laundry handling that did not follow recommended guidance. Most of these issues were being fixed by the second visit.

People had individual risk assessments, suitable recruitment checks and systems for medicines and accidents. People and relatives generally said they felt safe and were positive about the care. However, audits had missed important problems, formal meetings and surveys had not continued regularly, and the home had experienced high staff turnover.

The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in December 2018 to Requires Improvement. The report gives this rating for Safe and Well-led. The other three key questions were not assessed during this focused inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicines management

    Medicines records were complete, storage temperatures were checked and errors were reported with appropriate action. The previous concern about evenly spaced antibiotics had been addressed.

    “MARs were fully completed. Temperatures of medicine storage areas and the medicine fridge were monitored.” from the report
  • Staff suitability

    The home completed recruitment checks, including references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

    “The provider completed checks on the suitability of potential staff.” from the report
  • People felt safe

    People and relatives generally said people felt safe. Staff knew how to report abuse and individual risks had been assessed.

    “People told us they felt safe and could raise concerns with the management about their care and support.” from the report
  • Family contact

    The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives and friends during the pandemic, including through a conservatory, video calls and telephone calls.

    “People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Exposed hot pipes

    serious

    On the first inspection day, exposed hot pipes in shared areas and corridors could have caused burns or scalds. Most were covered and made safe by the second visit.

    “On day one of our inspection we found exposed hot pipes in the communal areas of the home and in corridors, which put people at potential harm of burns and scalds.” from the report
  • Infection control and laundry

    needs fixing

    Some areas were cluttered and difficult to clean. Dirty and clean laundry was carried in the same bags, creating a risk of cross-contamination.

    “Some areas of the home such as the staff room, office and hallway leading to the manager's office were cluttered, which was a potential infection control risk and made cleaning difficult.” from the report
  • Checks missed problems

    needs fixing

    The home's audits had not identified the exposed pipes, laundry concerns or clutter. There was no formal action plan to drive the improvements.

    “However, these had not identified any of the issues we found on day one of our inspection, such as the exposed pipe work, that systems needed to improve in respect of the laundry or that some areas of the home were cluttered.” from the report
  • Limited feedback arrangements

    minor

    Resident meetings, team meetings and annual surveys had not continued regularly. The last resident meeting was in March 2021 and the last survey was in 2018.

    “However, formal systems had not been embedded during the pandemic such as resident meetings or annual surveys.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all exposed hot pipes now been covered, and how are you checking that they remain safe?
  2. 02What new process is used to keep dirty laundry separate from clean laundry?
  3. 03How are clutter and cleaning standards checked in the staff room, office and hallways?
  4. 04How has staffing stabilised since the recent high turnover, and how are staff vacancies and short-notice absences covered?
  5. 05When will resident, relative and staff meetings and surveys restart, and how will feedback lead to improvements?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key-question ratings were not assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2018

Abbeygate was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a recommendation about the timing of antibiotics.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 5 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines information, complaints and management records.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, were treated kindly and had choices about their care, food and activities.

The home had improved since the previous inspection in December 2017, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breached one regulation. At this inspection, inspectors found that all regulations had been met. They did recommend reviewing the timing of some antibiotics because they were not always given at regularly spaced intervals.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind staff

    People and relatives spoke very positively about the staff. Inspectors observed kind, patient and caring interactions.

    “People were supported by staff who were trained and competent.” from the report
  • Personalised care

    Care plans described people's individual needs, preferences and abilities. Staff changed the support when people's needs changed.

    “People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
  • Activities and choice

    People could choose whether to join activities and were supported to access the community. They were involved in deciding on trips and events.

    “People were supported to engage in a variety of activities.” from the report
  • Improved management

    The home had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found that audits were now identifying and addressing shortfalls.

    “There was an effective governance system and staff morale was good.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Antibiotic timing

    needs fixing

    Some antibiotics were not given at regularly spaced intervals, which could reduce how well they worked. Inspectors recommended reviewing the system used to manage this.

    “However, we found that antibiotics were not being given at regularly spaced intervals. This reduced their effectiveness.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes were made to ensure antibiotics are given at appropriately spaced intervals?
  2. 02How are medicines now checked to make sure they are given safely and on time?
  3. 03How have the improvements made since the Requires Improvement rating in December 2017 been maintained?
  4. 04How are residents involved in choosing activities, trips and meals?
  5. 05How will you support someone whose needs become more complex or who may need end of life care?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Abbeygate

4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. March 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Abbeygate →

  2. December 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Abbeygate →

  3. January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. December 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. February 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 February 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset

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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near North SomersetProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.