CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Abingdon Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable recruitment checks and effective infection control measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and routines. People had access to activities, communication support and help to maintain important relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, supportive teamwork and stronger quality assurance systems. The home involved people, relatives and staff in giving feedback and making improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Abingdon Court Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and better management after the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors looked at Safe, Responsive and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all three areas inspected. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, appropriate recruitment checks and good systems for managing risks. Care plans had improved and people received support based on their needs, preferences and routines.
Inspectors also found activities had been adapted during the coronavirus restrictions, staff knew people well and the home worked with health and social care professionals. The management and quality checking systems had improved since the last inspection.
The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good. However, Effective and Caring were not examined during this focused inspection, so their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and found that medicines were administered and recorded safely.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about individual needs, preferences and routines, and were updated when people's needs changed.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home adapted activities to the restrictions and supported people to keep in touch with family and friends.
“People had access to a variety of activities which mainly included individual activities in line with current social distancing guidelines.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found that management arrangements and quality checks had become stronger since the previous inspection.
“The provider had introduced a more robust quality assurance system since the last inspection which were used to drive improvement within the service.” from the report
End of life support
Staff supported people's end of life choices and worked with other professionals to provide dignified care.
“Staff knew how to support people and families during and after end of life care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are activities and family visits being arranged now, and how do you make sure people do not become socially isolated?
- 02What changes have you made to care recording since the inspection, and how often are care plans reviewed?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain enough when people's needs change?
- 04How are medicines audits carried out, and what happens if an error or missed dose is found?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective and Caring, which were not reassessed during this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 2020 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 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but concerns about staffing, medicines, care records, activities and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Caring. People were treated with kindness and respect. Their health, nutrition, choices and consent were generally well supported.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found staffing was not always deployed around people's needs, some medicine records were incorrect, and electronic care plans were confusing or contained conflicting information. Activities were also limited, which could increase social isolation.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 20 November 2018. A new manager was making changes, but the new quality monitoring system had only been running for one month, so inspectors could not yet judge whether it was effective.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff communicating politely and respectfully, while supporting people's privacy and independence.
“We observed staff talking to people in a polite and respectful manner.” from the report
Good support with health
The home made timely referrals and worked with other services. Health professionals said staff followed advice and sought further guidance when needed.
“Where referrals were needed, this was done in a timely manner.” from the report
Food and personal choice
People could choose meals and where to eat. Staff catered for special diets and respected people's preferences.
“We saw people were supported with meals in a dignified way.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood how to raise safeguarding concerns, and the provider had policies and reporting systems in place.
“People were supported by staff that knew how to raise safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Staffing deployment
seriousAlthough the home was achieving the planned staffing numbers, inspectors found staff were often task-focused and people's needs were not always met in a meaningful way.
“There were not always sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs in a meaningful way.” from the report
Medicine errors and records
seriousInspectors found medicines given at the wrong time and incomplete information about where patches had been applied. Staff addressed the concerns during the inspection.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Conflicting care information
seriousThe electronic care planning system was difficult to follow. Some care plans were not updated or gave different instructions, which could mean people did not receive the right care.
“Some of the care plans were not updated and some contained conflicting information.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingActivities were not consistently available, particularly when the activity coordinators were away. People staying in their rooms did not have one-to-one activities on the inspection day.
“People's access to activities needed to improve to prevent social isolation.” from the report
Unsettled management
needs fixingThe home had four managers in four years. Existing quality checks had not identified some of the staffing concerns, and the new quality system had not been running long enough to assess.
“Abingdon Court had had four managers in four years.” from the report
- 01How have staffing levels and staff deployment changed since the inspection, especially when staff are off sick or on holiday?
- 02What checks now make sure medicines are given at the prescribed time and patches are applied to different sites as required?
- 03How do you make sure electronic care plans are kept up to date and do not contain conflicting instructions?
- 04What activities are available for people who stay in their rooms, and how is social isolation monitored?
- 05What evidence can you show that the new quality assurance system has found and fixed problems since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC questions; Safe, Responsive and Well-led deteriorated from Good, while Effective and Caring remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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 Abingdon Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2016.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.