CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Manchester
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, safeguarding, risk management, staffing, equipment and infection control were managed safely. A small medicines guidance and temperature-recording issue was corrected during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate healthcare support, staff had relevant training, and nutritional risks were monitored. Inspectors noted that food likes and dislikes were not yet fully recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff offered choices, supported independence and considered cultural and religious dietary needs.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Staff knew people's routines and needs, but care plans did not fully record individual social and food preferences. The home was also working to increase activities and improve person-centred care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had improved quality checks, supportive leadership and good working relationships with health and social care professionals. The manager's registration was approved soon after the inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Abbotsford Care Home - Manchester is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but personalised activities and preferences needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 1 and 3 December 2021. They spoke with people, staff and an interpreter, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, maintenance and quality records. They also checked infection control arrangements.
The home was safe, effective, caring and well-led. Medicines, safeguarding, staffing, risk assessments, infection control and maintenance had improved. People spoke positively about the care and staff, and inspectors found good links with health professionals.
The Responsive rating was Requires Improvement. Care plans did not fully record everyone's social, food and other preferences. The home was also working to provide more activities and improve the dining room.
The overall rating is Good. This is an improvement from Requires Improvement in 2019, when five legal breaches were found. At this inspection, the provider was no longer in breach of those regulations.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed and that records checked were accurate. Staff were trained and medicines systems were regularly reviewed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and a sample of medicines checked demonstrated that records were correct.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Recruitment checks had been completed and inspectors found enough suitably trained staff to meet people's needs.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about the care. Staff offered choices, encouraged independence and respected privacy and dignity.
“People told us staff promoted their independence where possible; staff were observed encouraging people to do tasks for themselves and supervising from a distance when safe to do so.” from the report
Inclusive communication
The home had Cantonese signs, interpreters and culturally relevant entertainment to support people whose first or preferred language was Cantonese.
“The service employed two interpreters. They could communicate with people in their first or preferred language of Cantonese and rotas reflected seven-day cover of the service.” from the report
Improved oversight
Quality checks and electronic care planning had improved management oversight. Staff described the home as more relaxed and supportive.
“Quality assurance systems in place had improved, assisted with the use of electronic care planning.” from the report
Preferences not fully recorded
needs fixingCare plans did not fully capture everyone's social or food preferences. Management said gathering this information would be a priority.
“care plans did not contain everyone's social or food preferences.” from the report
Activities needed development
needs fixingAn earlier audit found that more activities would benefit people. The home had appointed a new activities coordinator and was working on this area.
“An audit undertaken in May 2021 identified more activities would be beneficial for people.” from the report
Dining room décor
minorInspectors thought the dining room needed redecoration to improve people's dining experience.
“We judged the dining room area would benefit from redecoration to improve the dining experience for people and discussed this with management.” from the report
Residential care only
needs fixingThe provider had stopped employing nurses and decided to provide residential care only. People at the inspection did not need nursing care, but families should confirm how health needs would be supported.
“In May 2021 the provider had made the decision to provide residential care only and nurses were no longer employed by the service.” from the report
- 01How have you recorded and reviewed my relative's food, social, cultural and personal preferences since this inspection?
- 02What regular group and one-to-one activities are now available, and how do you make sure they match each person's interests?
- 03What improvements have been made to the dining room and the dining experience?
- 04The home now provides residential care only. How would you support my relative if they needed nursing care?
- 05How are end of life wishes recorded and reviewed, given that some care plans did not yet include this information?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the visit took place over 1 and 3 December 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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, December 2019
Abbotsford Care Home - Manchester was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines management, safeguarding and governance weaknesses alongside some kind and personalised care.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 22, 23 and 29 October 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Medicines sometimes ran out and records were incomplete. Inspectors also found environmental hazards, weak safeguarding arrangements and gaps in recruitment checks. These issues led to breaches of regulations.
Care was often kind and personalised, and staff had appropriate training. However, some people were left distressed or waiting for meals, and end of life wishes were not always discussed. The overall rating and all five question ratings were Requires Improvement.
The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in October 2018. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The provider was told to make improvements and CQC issued a warning notice about governance.
Staff training
Staff had induction, ongoing training, supervision and competency checks. Inspectors found they had the skills and knowledge needed for their roles.
“Staff received training and had the skills and knowledge needed to perform their roles effectively.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained information about people's histories, interests and preferences. Most plans gave clear guidance about how people's needs should be met.
“We viewed 10 care plans on inspection and noted they contained good person-centred information with clear guidance for staff on how people wanted their needs met.” from the report
Activities and communication
People could take part in group and one-to-one activities. Cantonese-speaking staff and interpreters helped people communicate and make decisions.
“People were supported to take part in group activities and given time to spend for one to one activity with the activity coordinator.” from the report
Complaints handling
People knew how to complain, and records showed complaints were investigated and answered in line with the home's procedure.
“There was a complaints log in place which showed that concerns had been responded to in line with the providers policy.” from the report
Some caring interactions
Inspectors saw staff respond sensitively on many occasions. People and visitors were often treated warmly and with dignity.
“We observed some very caring and sensitive approaches were undertaken by some of the staff.” from the report
Medicines were unsafe
seriousMedicines sometimes ran out, including prescribed laxatives and pain relief. Records did not always show medicines were given safely, and thickened drinks were not always prepared safely.
“Medicines were not ordered in a timely way which meant sometimes they ran out.” from the report
Safeguarding arrangements
seriousThe home knew about risks linked to one person's night-time behaviour and an unexplained injury, but the arrangements in place were not enough to keep people safe.
“This showed safeguarding processes were not robust enough to ensure reasonable actions were taken to help ensure people were protected from the risk of harm and abuse.” from the report
Environmental hazards
seriousBoxes blocked access to a toilet and created a trip hazard. An unlocked laundry room exposed people to electrical equipment, and a propped-open bedroom door could have created a fire risk.
“During our night visit to the home we were able to access an unlocked laundry room on the basement floor.” from the report
Inconsistent mealtimes
needs fixingPeople waited a long time for lunch on the first inspection day, and the evening meal was also poorly managed. The lunchtime service improved on the second day.
“We observed people were left waiting in the dining room for a long time before the meals were served.” from the report
Care was not always responsive
needs fixingOne distressed person was not always supported, and another person remained in a wheelchair for up to two hours. One care plan was not updated promptly when a person's risks changed.
“We observed one person to be distressed for long periods of time and staff did not always respond to assist them.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits rated medicines as highly compliant but failed to identify the problems inspectors found. Management also did not resolve some environmental hazards or agreed safeguarding actions.
“This placed people at risk of harm. This was a continued breach of regulation 17 (Good Governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure medicines are ordered on time, recorded accurately and given at the correct times?
- 02How are risks from night-time behaviour, unexplained injuries and possible abuse now assessed and managed?
- 03What has been done to remove environmental hazards and keep areas such as the laundry room secure?
- 04How do managers now check that mealtimes are well organised and that people are not left waiting?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in care plan reviews and discussions about end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, the premises, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 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 Manchester
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- 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.
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 Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.