Abbott House - Oundle

Updated 4 February 2026

Date of Assessment: 1 April 2026 to 25 June 2026.

Abbott House – Oundle is a care home service without nursing providing support to older people and people living with dementia.

This assessment was prompted by information we held about this service. We carried out a comprehensive assessment and assessed a total of 33 quality statements.

At the time of our assessment there were 34 people using the service. As part of our assessment activity, we undertook on-site visits on 1 April 2026, 29 April 2026, 6 May 2026, 20 May 2026 and 4 June 2026.

This assessment was carried out by 2 inspectors, 1 operations manager and 1 Expert by Experience who had personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

During this assessment we spoke with people, and their relatives. We also spoke with staff including the area manager, deputy manager, administration support, maintenance staff, senior support workers, support workers, the cook and kitchen team and laundry staff.

The provider did not always ensure people were kept safe, but immediate risks following incidents were not consistently mitigated, staffing levels, particularly during evenings and bedtimes, were not always sufficient to meet people's needs or provide adequate supervision in communal areas. However, systems were in place to monitor and learn from incidents, safeguarding processes were understood and followed, some risks were addressed by the end of the assessment. Medicines were managed safely and the environment was clean and well maintained, infection risks were controlled, and people were supported by trained staff to remain as independent as possible while taking positive risks and accessing their community safely.

People’s needs were assessed, however, improvements were required in the ongoing monitoring of their needs to ensure care plans remained effective and people received person centred care. The provider had a good understanding of evidence based best practice, however, care was not always delivered as planned. The provider mostly worked well with other services, some healthcare professionals reported that sharing of information could be improved. People were not consistently supported to live healthier and reduce the risk of requiring further care and treatment.

The provider understood the importance of staff wellbeing on recruitment and retention and offered support packages for staff when needed.

People were treated equally and knew how to raise concerns or make complaints these were managed by the provider as per their policy and procedure. People were supported at end of life in the home if they wished.

The provider had clear values and took action where needed to ensure this was maintained. There was a capable and compassionate management team in post in the absence of a registered manager, however, systems and processes did not always support them to identify areas for improvement in the home. The provider was open and transparent and made some improvements during the assessment where we highlighted concerns.

We identified a breach of regulation in relation to good governance. This service has been rated Requires Improvement overall. We have asked the provider to submit an action plan in response to the concerns identified during this assessment.

Updated 4 February 2026

People told us they felt safe and well cared for. One person said, “We’re safe and well looked after. I can’t find fault with it”. However, people and their relatives told us there wasn’t always enough staff available to support people, they told us night shifts were a particular problem. One person said, “There’s not always enough [staff] as you have to wait longer. At night there’s not enough to help me get to bed and I have a very long wait”.

People were treated with kindness and dignity but their privacy was not sometime affected by other people entering their rooms. People were supported to be as independent as possible and were making their own choices as much as possible. People’s immediate needs were responded to, staff understood how to prioritize.

People told us that they got their medicines when they needed them and timed medicines were given at the correct time. Some people said not all staff stayed with people to take their medicines and one person described finding medicine on the floor that they saw drop from another resident’s lap who had forgotten they were there. The provider improved their policy and procedure during the assessment.

People told us that the home was clean. A person told us, “The cleaners are very good”. There was also positive feedback about the laundry service. Staff sought consent from people before delivering care to them and refusals of support were respected. People had personalised their rooms with their own ornaments, pictures, soft furnishings and furniture, people told us this made them feel at home. A relative said, “We’ve been able to personalise [relatives] room so they feel safe and secure”. People received person-centred care from staff who knew them well, and people and their relatives described how care had been adapted to suit individual needs and preferences. One relative described how a person like to be dressed and staff supported them as per this preference. People were well kempt and appropriately dressed for the weather and time of day or night. People told us they had regular access to healthcare professionals such as a GP, Nurse and opticians.

People told us they liked the food, there was plenty of choice and they could have snacks and drinks when they wanted. One person said, “I like the food very much - it’s nicely set out and good size portion”.

People told us they were encouraged to be as independent as possible, could make their own choices and were treated with dignity and respect. One person said, “I like my door shut day and night and don’t want nighttime checks which they respect”. People spoke positively of the activities coordinator, however, some people told us the activities were limited and there were no activities at the weekends. The activities coordinator mostly swapped a midweek day to a Saturday fortnightly to support people at weekends. People told us they would like to go out more.

People told us there was regular relative and resident meetings and they felt listened to and involved.