CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Abbeyrose Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding, risk management, medicines and infection control systems were mostly effective. They identified delays for some people during mealtimes and incomplete recruitment applications.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had their needs assessed, received healthcare support and were supported by trained staff. However, CCTV consent and best-interest decision-making had not always been properly demonstrated under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Staff offered choices, respected privacy and dignity, and supported people with faith and voting.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were reviewed and activities were available both individually and in groups. The home had a complaints process and investigated concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team carried out regular checks and was working through improvements. Inspectors said some procedures did not fully reflect the scope of the regulations, including those covering CCTV.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Abbeyrose Court is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care but identified weaknesses in mealtime staffing, CCTV consent and laundry arrangements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 7 April 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records. They also checked infection control arrangements.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, medicines were given when needed, people were treated with respect, and care was planned around their needs.
There were areas for improvement. People could wait during mealtimes, recruitment records were incomplete, the home had not always shown that CCTV decisions followed the Mental Capacity Act, and people raised concerns about laundry. CQC made recommendations and said it would continue to monitor the home.
Medicines given on time
People told inspectors they received their medicines when they should. The home monitored medicine stocks and kept administration records.
“The nurses make sure I get all my tablets on time” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff team. Inspectors saw staff offering choices and supporting privacy, dignity and independence.
“People and their family members spoke positively about the support they received from the staff team.” from the report
Activities and personal support
An activities co-ordinator provided stimulation through individual and group activities. Staff knew people well and supported their communication needs.
“The co-ordinator spent time with people both individually and in groups offering stimulation via discussion and activities.” from the report
Regular management checks
The registered manager carried out regular checks on the service and acted on issues found. The management team was also reviewing areas for improvement.
“Daily, weekly and monthly checks relating to the overall management of the service were carried out and monitored by the registered manager.” from the report
Mealtime delays
needs fixingPeople were seen waiting in the dining room while staff helped others in their bedrooms. One person said meals could be cold when eaten in their room.
“However, during mealtimes people were seen waiting in the dining room whilst staff were busy supporting people with their meals in their bedrooms.” from the report
CCTV and consent
needs fixingCCTV covered communal areas, including dining rooms and lounges. The home had not shown that appropriate consent and decision-making had taken place when required.
“The provider failed to demonstrate appropriate decision making/consent had been implemented when needed under the MCA.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorSome staff application forms were incomplete and documents from the previous provider were not always relevant or correct. The home started a review and introduced new documents after the inspection.
“Not all staff applications had been fully completed.” from the report
Laundry service
minorPeople and relatives raised concerns about the laundry service. The manager had already taken action, but inspectors recommended continued review to make sure it consistently met people's needs.
“People and their family members raised concerns in relation to the laundry service provided.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to staff deployment during mealtimes, and how do you check that people are not left waiting or given cold food?
- 02How do you now obtain and record consent or best-interest decisions for CCTV under the Mental Capacity Act?
- 03Have all staff recruitment records been reviewed and completed using the new documents?
- 04What changes have been made to the laundry service, and how do you check that people's clothes and laundry needs are being met?
- 05Which of the recommendations from this inspection have been completed, and what evidence can you show?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered home, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 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.
Every inspection of Abbeyrose Court
7 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 November 2020.
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 St. Helens
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.