CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abiden Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were protected from abuse and there were enough staff during the visits. However, accident and falls records did not always record actions taken or accurately reflect incidents.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans included people's dietary needs and mealtimes were positive. However, weight monitoring and follow-up were not always effective, and some DoLS applications, conditions and staff supervisions needed better follow-up.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity, independence and choices were respected. Some relatives raised concerns about inconsistent personal care and presentation.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had been reviewed and included information about people's needs and communication. However, activities were very limited and some relatives were not regularly involved in care plan discussions.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- There had been improvements, but management arrangements were not consistent and there was no registered manager in post. Audits did not always identify problems or show that actions had been followed up.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and responsive, but safety, nutrition records and management oversight still had important gaps.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 8 February 2023, with inspection activity ending on 23 February. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and mealtimes, toured the building, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
People were generally treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans had improved, medicines were mostly managed safely, and there were enough staff during the visits. People were also supported with their communication and health needs.
However, accident records did not always show what action had been taken. One person's weight loss had not been followed up, and activities were very limited, leaving some people bored. Staff supervision was not recent, and the home's audits did not reliably identify or follow up problems.
The overall rating improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. The home had been in special measures since September 2022, but it is no longer in special measures. The provider was still in breach of regulations about safe incident management, nutrition and governance.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly to people, respecting privacy and supporting independence. People and relatives generally said staff knew their likes and dislikes.
“We observed staff engaging with people with patience and dignity.” from the report
Improved medicines management
Medicines systems had improved substantially since the previous inspection. Administration records mainly reflected people's needs and there were no gaps showing that prescribed medicines had been missed.
“Since then, staff worked with local agencies and implemented changes to ensure the management of medicines was safe.” from the report
Positive mealtimes
Inspectors saw a calm and positive mealtime, with menus, choices and kind support from staff. The kitchen was clean and tidy.
“Meals looked appetising and people appeared to be enjoying the food offered.” from the report
Better infection control
The home had enough protective equipment and current infection control policies. Inspectors found enough improvement for the provider no longer to be in breach of this part of Regulation 12.
“People were protected from the risk of infection” from the report
Good professional partnership working
Health and social care professionals visited the home and were involved in people's care. Feedback from professionals was very positive.
“We received very positive feedback from the professionals working with the service, especially about their level of engagement and involvement.” from the report
Accident records and follow-up
seriousRecords did not always show what action had been taken after accidents. Falls and accident audits were brief, incomplete or did not reflect all incidents, creating an increased risk that lessons would be missed.
“Accident records had been completed. However, these did not confirm what action had been taken as a result of the accident.” from the report
Weight loss and nutrition monitoring
seriousOne person's weight loss had not been identified and followed up. Guidance about food consistency also had not been updated in the kitchen until inspectors raised it.
“There was no evidence to confirm one person's weight loss had been identified and followed up.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingMost people said activities were not offered regularly and some people said they were bored. Staff did not know how to use the activity board, although training was planned.
“There are no activities at all [person] has no stimulation.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe home had no registered manager and had not had consistent management since the previous inspection. Audits were sometimes out of date, and actions were not always followed up.
“The provider did not always have a robust system to monitor and identify shortfalls in the quality of the service.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff had not received recent supervision or appraisal. The provider said this would be made a priority for the new manager.
“I have not had supervision or appraisal, but other staff have had them.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the accident and falls records, and how do you check that actions are completed after every incident?
- 02How are people's weights, food consistency and drinks monitored, and what happens if someone loses weight?
- 03What is the current activities programme, and how will you make sure it reflects each person's interests and is recorded?
- 04Who is currently responsible for the home, and when will the registered manager application be completed?
- 05How often are staff now receiving supervision, and how are medicines audits and other audit actions checked?
This was a follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, following the previous Inadequate rating and warning notices. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2023 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 report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, medicines, environmental and management problems.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service. Inspectors visited on 27 and 28 July 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, toured the building and checked care records, medicines, staff files and monitoring records.
The inspectors found serious concerns about gas, electrical and water safety, fire safety, the condition of the building, infection control and medicines. Risks were not always assessed or recorded. Staffing gaps were found, although action was taken during the inspection to increase kitchen and night staffing. People were protected from abuse and staff were usually kind and responsive.
Care records were basic and did not always reflect people's needs. Food choices and nutritional support were not always managed properly. There were no meaningful activities taking place, and complaints had not been properly investigated or recorded. Management checks and audits had failed to identify the widespread problems.
Safeguarding awareness
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and could explain how they would report concerns.
“People were protected from the risks of abuse. People and relatives told us they felt safe in the service.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives were mostly positive about the care. Inspectors saw staff being kind and attentive.
“People received good care from the staff. Most people and relatives told us they were happy with the care.” from the report
Timely help
Staff were visible in communal areas and responded to people's requests for help promptly.
“Buzzers were observed to being answered in a timely manner and, staff were visible in the communal areas” from the report
Health professional involvement
People had access to health professionals. Records showed referrals and emergency contacts when needed.
“There was evidence of the involvement of professionals. Professionals confirmed they had been involved in people's care needs” from the report
Serious building safety risks
seriousInspectors found a gas leak, a water leak affecting electrical wires, unsafe doors, clutter and gaps in fire safety records. Emergency repairs and other immediate actions were taken.
“There was a gas leak and a water leak which had soaked through a ceiling into electrical wires.” from the report
Medicines were not safely managed
seriousThere were not enough trained staff with recorded competency checks. Medicines records and storage were unsafe, and one person missed four doses of strong pain relief because there was no stock.
“One person had missed four doses of their strong pain relief medicine because the service had no stock.” from the report
Infection control failures
seriousStaff were not initially wearing the required protective equipment and visitor checks were not maintained. Some toilets lacked hand wash and paper towels, and areas contained clutter and used laundry.
“People were not protected from the risks of infection.” from the report
Care records lacked detail
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not always reflect people's current needs. Reviews were not detailed enough, including for falls and medical conditions.
“People's care records had been developed however, they were basic and did not always reflect people's current needs.” from the report
No meaningful activities
needs fixingInspectors found no activities taking place during the visit. Records showed activities had not been recorded since March, and the activity resources were very basic.
“People told us, "We haven't seen any activities, there are no activities at all” from the report
Poor management oversight
seriousAudits and monitoring were missing, overdue or incomplete. The provider had not identified the widespread concerns found during the inspection.
“The provider had failed to identify the significant concerns found at this inspection.” from the report
- 01What repairs and fire safety improvements were completed after the gas leak, water leak, electrical concerns and building defects were found?
- 02How do you now make sure medicines are in stock, stored securely and given by staff whose competency has been checked?
- 03How are individual risks, care plans and reviews kept up to date, especially for falls, moving and handling, medical conditions and end of life care?
- 04What regular activities are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and choices?
- 05What audits and checks are now in place to identify problems, investigate complaints and involve people, relatives and staff?
This inspection covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, through observations, discussions, a building tour and checks of care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 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 Abiden Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2022InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 May 2022.
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.