CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abbotswood Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found measures covering visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Abbotswood Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the pandemic.
The CQC carried out an announced, targeted inspection on 16 December 2020. It looked at how the home prevented and managed infection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found arrangements for visitors, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning and social distancing. They were also assured that staff understood infection control procedures and that the home had plans for possible outbreaks.
The home was not given an overall rating. The Safe question was inspected but not rated, and the other four questions were not covered by this visit.
Visitor infection controls
The home had entry checks, hand sanitising, electronic sign-in and arrangements designed to reduce touching and infection risks.
“Measures were in place and clearly communicated to prevent relatives & friends, professionals and others visiting from spreading infection at the entrance and on entering the premises.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home provided outdoor and indoor visiting arrangements, with distancing and equipment to help people communicate safely.
“Safe visiting was facilitated through the summer using three large garden gazebos, social distancing and an appointment system.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Inspectors found clear procedures for using and disposing of PPE, and staff showed they understood them.
“There were clear procedures in place for donning, doffing and disposal of personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff demonstrated knowledge of these.” from the report
Cleaning and isolation planning
Cleaning of frequently touched areas had increased. The home had also prepared an isolation area for people who could not safely isolate in their own rooms.
“Routine cleaning schedules had been enhanced with increased cleaning of contact points, such as doors, handles, handrails, and light switches, including communal areas and people's bedrooms.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and what measures are currently used to reduce infection risks?
- 02How are new admissions tested and supported during any isolation period?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested now?
- 04How would the home manage isolation for someone who could not stay safely in their own room?
- 05How are staffing gaps covered, given that the home did not use agency staff at the time of the inspection?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four CQC questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, October 2017
Abbotswood Court was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care and Outstanding support for people's interests and community links, with minor food-related issues addressed during the visit.
This was the home's first inspection. It began unannounced on 15 August 2017 and continued on 16 August 2017 after being announced. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, checked care and medicines records, reviewed management information and observed the building and staff practice.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable support with food and drink, access to healthcare, kind staff and effective management.
Responsive care was rated Outstanding. Care plans reflected people's interests, history and relationships. People were supported to continue hobbies, develop community links and take part in activities that suited them, including individual activities.
Inspectors found two food-related shortfalls during the visit. One allergy had not been copied onto the kitchen whiteboard, and late evening snacks were not routinely offered. The manager acted straight away on the allergy information and said snacks would be offered later in the evening.
Personalised activities
The home supported people to continue past interests and develop new activities. Staff used people's skills, memories and relationships to create meaningful experiences.
“This meant that activities were meaningful to people and recognised their individual skills and talents.” from the report
Community links
People were encouraged to stay involved with local groups and community events. The home also welcomed local people, families, schools and community organisations.
“The home actively encouraged people to continue to be involved in community initiatives.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate patiently and support people at their own pace. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
“People and their families described the staff as caring, kind and patient.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the leadership. Meetings, feedback and quality checks were used to make improvements and support teamwork.
“The culture was open and inclusive and positively supported people, their families and the staff team in decisions about the service.” from the report
Allergy information
needs fixingOne person's allergy had not been copied from the written assessment to the kitchen whiteboard. The manager removed the whiteboard and asked catering staff to use the written assessments instead.
“We checked the whiteboard and found that one person's allergy details had not been transferred.” from the report
Late evening snacks
minorSome people said the time between their evening meal and breakfast felt long. Although snacks were available to ask for, they were not offered with late evening drinks at the time of inspection.
“Although people told us they were aware they could ask for snacks they weren't offered any with late evening drinks.” from the report
- 01How are allergies and other special dietary needs recorded and checked with kitchen staff now?
- 02Are snacks routinely offered with late evening drinks, and how is this recorded?
- 03How would you tailor activities for someone who does not enjoy group activities?
- 04How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about care?
- 05How do you ensure enough familiar staff are available when someone is off sick?
This was the first comprehensive inspection and covered all five key questions, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 2017 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 Abbotswood Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 September 2015.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.