CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Abraham House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, effective safeguarding procedures and medicines administered as prescribed. Risks were assessed and reviewed when incidents occurred.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective management oversight, good governance systems and a positive culture. Staff felt supported and valued, and relatives and residents were invited to give feedback.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, and the rating remained unchanged.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 April and 2 May 2023. One inspector and one Expert by Experience visited the home. They spoke with 10 people, six relatives and six staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training, governance and premises records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, suitable safeguarding procedures and medicines given as prescribed. They also found that risks were assessed and reviewed, infection prevention measures were in place, and mental capacity safeguards were being followed.
Inspectors found kind, attentive and person-centred care. The manager and staff had effective oversight of care and records, and relatives and staff said communication and support were good. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the inspection published in May 2018.
Safe care
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood people's risks and knew how to support them safely.
“People received safe care from kind and attentive staff who were knowledgeable about their needs and wishes.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored and given by trained staff as prescribed. Records included allergy information and clear instructions for medicines given when needed.
“People received their medicines safely. The provider's medicines policy was understood and followed by staff.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff took time to understand what mattered to each person and how they preferred to be supported. The home also considered cultural, religious and language needs.
“People received inclusive and empowering care because staff took time to understand what was important to them, and how they preferred to be supported.” from the report
Management and teamwork
The manager had effective systems for checking care, records and the premises. Staff described the management team as supportive and approachable.
“The provider had an effective governance and audit system in place which was followed by the registered manager.” from the report
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable measures for preventing and managing infection, including safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you continue to check that my relative's risks are clearly recorded and reviewed after any incident?
- 02How will you make sure medicines given when needed are offered at the right time and dose?
- 03How would you support my relative's language, cultural or religious needs?
- 04How can relatives give feedback, attend meetings or raise concerns?
- 05What training would staff receive to meet my relative's particular care needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 11 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found that visitors were tested and given handwashing facilities and personal protective equipment. New residents were tested and isolated as required. Staff used protective equipment correctly, and staff and residents had regular testing.
The home was clean and free of clutter. It had plans for social distancing, visiting, and managing a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors were also assured that non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a new overall rating or assess all five areas of care.
Visitor infection controls
The home had testing, handwashing and sanitising arrangements for visitors, with protective equipment available at entry and exit.
“Measures were in place to prevent relatives & friends, professionals and others visiting from spreading infection at the entrance and on entering the premises.” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents were tested and isolated as required. The home also had zoned areas for people who found it difficult to self-isolate.
“The service was following the required testing and isolation periods for new residents and also supported those who struggled to self-isolate using zoned areas in the home if required.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Staff used protective equipment correctly and received training that was refreshed regularly. Staff and residents had regular COVID-19 testing.
“Staff used personal protective equipment correctly and complied with current guidance.” from the report
Clean environment and outbreak planning
Inspectors found the premises clean, hygienic and free of clutter. The home had plans to separate residents during an outbreak.
“The premises looked clean, hygienic and clutter free with a cleaning schedule maintained by dedicated cleaning staff who knew which cleaning products to use.” from the report
Vaccination checks
The home checked vaccination requirements for staff and visiting professionals who were not exempt, and kept records of this.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures, and have these affected residents' care?
- 02How do you currently test and isolate new residents?
- 03What are the current arrangements for relatives and friends to visit?
- 04How would you manage an outbreak, including separating residents who have COVID-19 from those who do not?
- 05How do you check and record vaccination or exemption requirements for staff and visiting professionals?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other areas of care or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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.
Every inspection of Abraham House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 2010.
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.