CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Allonsfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Allonsfield House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and caring support, but activities, staffing deployment and management needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and meals, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and management records. They also spoke with relatives by telephone after the visit.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Caring. Medicines were managed safely, staff understood safeguarding, risks were recorded, and people were generally treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff had the training and skills needed, and people could make day-to-day choices about their care.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective, Responsive and Well-led. People living with dementia were sometimes left without support or meaningful activity, and parts of the building and dining arrangements did not meet their needs well. Inspectors also found that staff were not always deployed effectively, wellbeing checks were not consistent, and quality checks had missed some problems.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, the same as at the previous inspection on 22 October 2022. Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good, while Effective and Responsive fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Well-led remained Requires Improvement.
Medicines managed safely
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and assessed as competent, and time-specific medicines were given according to people's schedules.
“The services used an electronic medicines system. This was well managed, and people received their medicines when they should.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans recorded people's needs, wishes, backgrounds and risks. People, relatives and other professionals were involved in assessments where appropriate.
“People's care plans were person centered and detailed the care and support they needed or preferred.” from the report
Respect for privacy
Inspectors saw that staff protected privacy during personal care, knocked before entering rooms and used people's preferred names.
“Bedroom doors were closed so that people were not observed when having personal care.” from the report
Safeguarding and learning
Staff knew how to report concerns. Incidents were investigated, reviewed and used to share learning across the provider's services.
“The provider had an electronic system to monitor incidents and ensure lessons were learnt and shared should a concern arise.” from the report
People left without support
needs fixingPeople in the dementia unit were left for lengthy periods without supervision or interaction, even though staff were nearby doing other tasks. Staff were also not always available in dining rooms.
“We observed lengthy periods of time when people in the dementia unit lounge had no supervision or interaction with staff, although staff were in the unit carrying out other tasks.” from the report
Limited dementia activities
needs fixingPeople living with advanced dementia or who were nonverbal were not consistently offered meaningful activities. Some were left to occupy themselves with repetitive or self-soothing actions.
“People living with advanced dementia or who were nonverbal were not offered any form of structured or unstructured activity in the morning of our inspection visit.” from the report
Environment not suited to dementia
needs fixingThe dementia unit had no suitable books, magazines or dementia-specific items, and its garden and dining room had not been adapted well. The Allonsfield Suite was also described as dark and tired.
“There were no books, magazines, or dementia specific items such as twiddle muffs.” from the report
Inconsistent management checks
needs fixingThere was no clear system to check the wellbeing of everyone throughout the day. The quality assurance systems had failed to identify all the issues found by inspectors.
“There were quality assurance system in place. However, these had not identified all of the concerns identified above.” from the report
Dining support gaps
needs fixingSome people were not supported consistently or with full dignity before lunch. In one dining room, no staff member stayed after meals were served, so immediate help was not available if someone choked.
“In the Allonsfield suite no member of staff stayed in the dining room once people had been served their meal.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made in the dementia unit since the inspection, and how are you checking that people receive regular supervision and meaningful activity?
- 02How do you make sure staff are deployed in the dementia unit and dining rooms when people need support?
- 03How are you adapting the dementia unit, garden and dining room to make them easier and more supportive for people living with dementia?
- 04What system now checks the wellbeing of people who stay in their rooms, lounges or move around the home?
- 05How will you show families that the improvement plan is being completed and that improvements are being sustained?
This unannounced inspection looked at all five key questions and included infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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, October 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but medicines records, risk assessments and management oversight were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 August 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Effective was rated Good. Inspectors found that oral medicines were given safely, staff were available, people had access to health professionals, and people and relatives were generally positive about the care.
The main problems were incomplete records for creams and other external medicines, care plans and risk assessments that did not always give staff enough guidance, and improvements identified by the home that had not yet been put into practice. The new manager had submitted an application to become the registered manager.
Safe oral medicines
Inspectors saw oral medicines being given safely. Staff responsible for medicines had been trained and their competence had been checked.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) for medicines to be taken orally, in the form of liquid and tablets, showed when people had received their medicines.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People could see health professionals when needed. Staff made referrals when they identified concerns such as weight loss or choking risks.
“People had access to health care professionals where required.” from the report
Support at mealtimes
Inspectors saw a calm lunchtime. Staff supported people at their own pace and offered choices of meals.
“During lunch, we observed a calm atmosphere and staff supported people, where required, at their own pace.” from the report
Kind staff and approachable management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the manager and the care team. Inspectors said staff were committed to providing good quality care.
“Staff talked with and about people in a caring way and staff were committed to providing good quality care.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home recorded lessons from complaints and incidents. Falls were reviewed for patterns and actions were taken to reduce future risks.
“The service had systems in place to learn lessons and reduce future risks.” from the report
Incomplete external medicine records
seriousRecords did not show consistently that creams and other external medicines had been given as prescribed. Records for August were missing in two units, and there were significant gaps in July.
“Records reviewed for medicines to be administered externally, such as creams, did not demonstrate people received these as prescribed.” from the report
Risk assessments lacked detail
seriousSome risk assessments did not explain how risks would be reduced. One person's risks were not explored even though they could not use their call bell.
“People's care records included risk assessments which did not always include how the risks were mitigated.” from the report
Care plans were not always current
seriousSome care plans were inconsistent or out of date. This created a risk that people could receive unsafe or unsuitable care.
“Some care plans had been reviewed, however, we found inconsistencies in care plans and some were not up to date, which was a risk that people could receive unsafe or inappropriate care.” from the report
Improvements were not completed
needs fixingThe home had identified shortfalls and recorded planned improvements, but inspectors found that the necessary changes had not yet been put into practice.
“Despite the provider's own monitoring system identifying shortfalls, the improvements needed had not yet been implemented.” from the report
Limited monitoring of call bells
needs fixingThere were no recorded audits to show that call bells were being answered promptly.
“There were no recorded audits in place to support the service to assess if people's call bells were being answered promptly.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and check that creams and other external medicines are given as prescribed?
- 02How are risks assessed and managed for people who cannot use their call bell?
- 03What changes have been completed to bring care plans up to date, and how are they checked?
- 04How do you monitor whether call bells are answered promptly?
- 05Has the manager's application to become the registered manager been completed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 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 Allonsfield House
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents 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.