You are here

Abbeyfield House - Stockport Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 19 January 2018

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 28 November and 4 December 2017.

Abbeyfield House- Stockport is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service on 7 September 2016. At that inspection we found the service to be in breach of the regulations relating to identifying and managing risk for people and the environment, gathering people’s feedback about the service and systems for quality assurance.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to tell us what they intended to do and by when to improve the key questions; is the service safe and well led to at least good. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in all areas.

Abbeyfield House-Stockport is a large extended detached house prominently positioned approximately one mile from Bramhall Village in Stockport. The home provides accommodation for older persons who require nursing or personal care for a maximum of 16 people over two floors. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living at the home.

Individual and environmental risk assessments were person centred and gave staff guidance on how to minimise and manage identified risks. The service had policies to guide staff on health and safety and infection control. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out and equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately.

There was a robust system of quality assurance in place. Weekly and monthly checks and audits were carried out by the registered manager and other managers of the service. These were used to assess, monitor and review the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Everyone we spoke with thought the service was well managed and spoke highly of the registered manager.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from abuse and were able to demonstrate their understanding of the procedure to follow so that people were kept safe.

The management and administration of people’s medicines was safe demonstrating people received their medicines as prescribed.

There was a safe system of recruitment in place which helped protect people who used the service from unsuitable staff.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to carry out their roles effectively. Staff meetings were held regularly where staff had an opportunity to raise any issues and were used to look a developing good practise. Staff we spoke with liked working for the service and told us they felt supported in their work.

People who used the service told us they were consulted about the care provided and staff always sought their consent before providing support. Where people were unable to consent to their care and treatment the principles of the MCA had been followed so that decisions were made in the persons ‘best interest’.

People had their nutritional needs met and were very positive about the food provided.

Everyone we spoke with told us they found the staff to be caring and kind. One person said, “The staff are very kind to me, they couldn’t be nicer”, “Yes, the staff are very kind. Most definitely they treat me with respect, they talk to me and ask what I would like, they offer things and they don’t force me to do things I don’t want.”

We found the st

Inspection areas



Updated 19 January 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe because they were supported by staff they knew and trusted.

The recruitment of staff was safe and there were sufficient staff to provide the support people needed.

Medicines were managed safely. There were policies and procedures in place and staff had received training in administering medicines.



Updated 19 January 2018

The service was effective.

People�s rights and choices were respected. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff gained people�s consent before care or support was provided.

Staff received the induction, training and supervision they needed to be able to provide safe and effective care.

People who used the service received appropriate support to ensure their health and nutritional needs were met.



Updated 19 January 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were caring and kind and that the atmosphere was �homely�.

The registered manager and staff had detailed knowledge of people and were able to tell us what was important to the people, their likes and dislikes and the support they required.

People�s records were stored securely so that people�s privacy and confidentiality was maintained.



Updated 19 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Care records were detailed and person centred. They contained information about people�s needs and wishes. They provided staff with the information they needed to support people appropriately.

A range of activities and events were provided helping to promote people�s health and wellbeing and maintain links with the local community.

There was a complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns.



Updated 19 January 2018

The service was well-led.

People who used the service and staff were positive about the registered manager. Staff enjoyed the working for the service and felt supported in their roles.

There were systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and arrangements were in place to seek feedback from people who used the service.