CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Leiston Old Abbey Residential Home
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Leiston Old Abbey Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some hygiene and building issues being addressed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 August 2019. The inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, incident records, audits and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, personalised care and respectful relationships. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, privacy and personal choices.
There were some hygiene problems, including cobwebs, dirty toilet bowls, sink overflows and dirty windowsills. Some building areas also needed work, such as chipped paint, a hole in a door and missing plugs or a light bulb. The manager had identified these issues and was taking action. One person whose needs had changed was at risk of feeling lonely, and steps were being taken to improve their social contact.
The Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection on 28 March 2017. CQC said the home would continue to be monitored and could be inspected sooner if concerning information was received.
Kind and respectful staff
People described positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw caring, reassuring interactions, with staff explaining care and checking that people were comfortable.
“We observed staff were caring, reassuring and compassionate in their interactions with people.” from the report
Personalised choices
Staff supported people to choose where to eat, how to receive personal care and whether to join activities. Care records included people's preferences and communication needs.
“People's care records were personalised and guided staff on how to meet people's individualised care based on their specific needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found staff available to respond to requests and saw medicines being administered safely. Medicines audits and staff competency checks were in place.
“Records showed regular audits on medicines, including ordering, disposal, storage, administration and recording, supported the management team to identify shortfalls and address them promptly.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
People's dietary needs and health conditions were assessed. Staff worked with healthcare professionals and supported people to attend appointments and receive appropriate care.
“People's dietary needs continued to be assessed and met.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home investigated accidents and incidents, looked for patterns and took action to reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“Incidents and accidents were analysed and checked for patterns.” from the report
Hygiene shortfalls
needs fixingInspectors found cobwebs, dirty toilet bowls, sink overflows, dirty windowsills and windows, and a dirty radiator cover. The manager had identified the problems and some were dealt with during the visit.
“There were some areas which needed some attention in relation to hygiene.” from the report
Repairs and improvements still in progress
needs fixingSome areas needed repair or improvement, including a hole in a bedroom door, chipped paint, sinks without plugs and a missing light bulb. Flooring and work to the grounds were also ongoing.
“There were some areas needing attention, such as a hole in a door in a bedroom and chipped paint.” from the report
Risk of loneliness for one person
minorOne person whose needs had recently changed spent more time in their bedroom and said they felt lonely. The manager said portable equipment and other steps were being arranged to help them use communal areas.
“However, one person whose needs had recently changed, and they spent more time in their bedroom said they felt lonely.” from the report
- 01Have all the hygiene issues found during the inspection, including dirty toilet bowls, sink overflows and windows, now been resolved?
- 02Has the hole in the bedroom door, chipped paint, missing sink plugs and missing light bulb been repaired?
- 03How do you identify and support people who may feel lonely or spend more time in their bedrooms?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed when people's numbers or care needs increase?
- 05How will you support my relative to make choices about meals, personal care, activities and where they spend their time?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the ratings were unchanged from the previous inspection in March 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 August 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Leiston Old Abbey Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found sustained improvements, kind care and safer systems, with a small medicines-recording shortfall.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 28 March 2017. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a social care professional. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safer medicines systems, suitable staff checks, improved training and staffing, respectful care, personalised support and better management oversight.
The report also explains that the home had previously been rated Inadequate. Earlier inspections found legal breaches and serious concerns about safety, staffing, care and management. By this inspection, inspectors found that improvements had been sustained, although they wanted more detail in some instructions for medicines given when needed.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and kind. Inspectors saw staff supporting independence and treating people with respect.
“People described staff as being caring and kind.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. Staff had been trained and assessed as competent.
“The service had safe systems in place for the ordering, storing and administration of medicines.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had relevant training, regular supervision and opportunities to gain care qualifications.
“Records showed that staff were provided with regular one to one supervision meetings.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and communication methods. Activities were increasingly tailored to what people enjoyed.
“The care records included information about people's preferences and assessed needs and how they were met.” from the report
Improved management
The home had better audits and systems for identifying and addressing shortfalls. Inspectors found that reported improvement actions had been implemented.
“During this inspection of 28 March 2017 we found that the improvements made had been sustained and had been developed to ensure that people were provided with a good quality service.” from the report
Instructions for some medicines
needs fixingInstructions for some medicines given when needed for pain or psychological agitation did not contain enough detail. The manager said extra information would be added.
“However more detail was required for medicines prescribed to be given 'when required' that were used to treat people's pain or psychological agitation to ensure they were used consistently and appropriately.” from the report
Busy periods and staffing history
needs fixingPeople generally said staffing was enough, but some said staff appeared rushed at busy times. The report also records a high turnover of staff and earlier serious staffing concerns.
“People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs, but at busy sometimes staff appeared rushed.” from the report
- 01What extra instructions are now in place for medicines given when needed for pain or psychological agitation?
- 02How do you check that there are enough care staff when more people move in or staff are absent?
- 03What has been done to address the high turnover of staff mentioned in the report?
- 04How are care plans and medicines records audited now, and what happens when a shortfall is found?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements found in 2017 have continued?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and checking whether earlier improvements had been sustained. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 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 Leiston Old Abbey Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Leiston Old Abbey Residential Home →
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Leiston Old Abbey Residential Home →
- September 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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.