CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Abbey Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, following visiting guidance, and managing infection risks. They were also told that measures were in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and COVID-19 safety measures were in place.
This was a targeted inspection on 10 February 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and asked about staffing pressures. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed visiting and social distancing guidance, arranged testing, and managed admissions and outbreaks. Staff had infection control training, and vaccination evidence was kept.
The home was well maintained and had plans for further work, including refurbishing a shower room. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and to go into the community. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
Staff had relevant training and understood how to use protective equipment. Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention arrangements.
“Staff had received training in Infection Prevention and Control and understood the requirements for the use of personal protective equipment to keep everyone safe.” from the report
Testing and vaccination records
People and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19. The home kept evidence of required staff vaccinations.
“Staff and people were tested regularly for COVID-19. Evidence of completion of the required vaccinations was maintained for staff.” from the report
Contact with relatives
Visits followed government guidance, and people could have outside visits and continue going into the community.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones with the option of outside visits in a purposed outbuilding.” from the report
Environment
The home was well maintained and had a programme of work to manage the building and its safety.
“The home was well maintained, and a programme of works were in place to manage the environment.” from the report
Infection control guidance
minorAlthough the policy was up to date, inspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach further.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention changes have been made since the February 2022 inspection?
- 02How would staffing pressures affect people's care if there were COVID-19-related absences?
- 03Has the planned shower room refurbishment been completed?
- 04How can relatives visit and how are visits managed if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05How do you keep vaccination and testing records up to date for staff and visiting professionals?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
The Abbey Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and monitoring still being improved.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 11 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with seven people living there, five relatives, one professional and eight staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe medicines practice and care that respected people's dignity, choices and independence.
There were some areas still being addressed. Incident analysis was not always completed promptly, some information was missing from the new electronic care plans, and end of life plans were due to be updated.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found a service meeting the relevant requirements and providing consistently good outcomes at the time of the visit. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published in August 2016.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people, with call bells answered promptly and staff visible throughout the home.
“There was enough staff to support people. Call bells were answered in a timely manner and staff were visible throughout the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and developed positive relationships.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted.” from the report
Good support and training
Staff received induction, training and supervision. Inspectors found that staff had the skills and knowledge needed to support people.
“Staff received training to ensure they had the relevant skills and knowledge.” from the report
Improved quality checks
The provider and management had improved monitoring so that shortfalls and the action taken were recorded more clearly.
“These now highlighted any shortfalls; action taken was recorded.” from the report
Incident reviews were sometimes late
needs fixingIncidents were responded to appropriately, but the review of patterns and trends was not always completed in a timely way.
“Although these were analysed to identify any trends this was not always completed in a timely manner.” from the report
Some care plan information was missing
needs fixingThe new electronic care plan system did not yet contain all the information needed for some people. The management team was addressing this.
“Some of their information was missing on their new electronic care plan system; this was being addressed.” from the report
End of life wishes needed updating
needs fixingPeople had advance care plans, but these did not yet fully include their end of life wishes. The registered manager planned to update them.
“The registered manager planned to update these so they included people's end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01Have all missing details in people's electronic care plans now been added and checked?
- 02How quickly are accidents and incidents now reviewed for patterns and lessons?
- 03How are each person's end of life wishes recorded, reviewed and shared with the right people?
- 04How are staff being supported to use the electronic care record system fully?
- 05What improvements or refurbishment have been made to the listed building since the inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 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 The Abbey Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 April 2011.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.