Abode

Date of assessment: 9 June to 10 June 2026. We undertook the assessment to check compliance against breaches of the legal regulations.

Abode is a residential care home which provides personal care for up to 22 older people, younger adults and people living with dementia. At the time of the assessment there were 22 people living at the service. We assessed all quality statements under the five key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well led.

At the last assessment in April 2025, the service was found to be in breach of 6 legal regulations in relation to person centred care, safe care and treatment, the environment, good governance, staffing levels and recruitment. At this assessment we found insufficient improvements had been made and the provider remained in continued breach of 2 regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We also identified a breach in regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

Significant concerns were identified across several areas of the service. Risks were not always effectively assessed, managed or reviewed, and care plans did not consistently contain accurate or up-to-date information to guide staff in providing safe care. Medicines were not always managed safely, with concerns identified around storage, recording, administration processes and monitoring. We also found significant environmental safety issues, including fire safety concerns, unsafe storage arrangements, hazards within the grounds and inadequate oversight of equipment safety. People were not always treated with dignity due to the environment.

Governance and quality assurance systems were ineffective and had failed to identify many of the concerns we found during the assessment. Audits lacked detail, did not always drive improvement and had not identified known risks relating to care planning, medicines management, environmental safety and restrictive practices. Leadership oversight was insufficient and there was limited evidence of a culture of learning, reflection and continuous improvement. Communication within the service was not always effective, and people, relatives and staff did not consistently feel involved in decisions or improvements.

Although the provider took immediate action to address a number of concerns during the assessment, we found widespread shortfalls in safety, governance, risk management and person-centred care. These issues meant people were exposed to avoidable risks and improvements were required to ensure care was consistently safe, effective, responsive and well led.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who responded appropriately to their immediate needs. People had access to healthcare services when required, safeguarding processes were in place, and staff received training, supervision and support to carry out their roles. The service was clean, infection prevention and control arrangements were effective, and people told us they felt safe and well cared for by staff.

This service has been in Special Measures since 6 June 2025. The provider demonstrated some improvements that have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Abode is a residential care home which provides personal care for up to 22 older people, younger adults and people living with a dementia. We assessed all quality statements under the five key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well Led. We completed an onsite assessment at Abode on 22, 23 and 24 April 2025.

We found 6 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care, safe car and treatment, the environment, good governance staffing levels and recruitment.

Feedback on learning culture was mixed, staff knew how to escalate concerns but professionals did not always feel concerns were actioned in a timely way. Risks were not always being appropriately managed. Safe practices were not always being followed. The environment was not safe or well-maintained meaning any risks had not always been mitigated. Safe staffing levels and safe recruitment practices were not in place. The service was not clean and infection control process were not always safe. Medicines were not safely managed.

People were involved in assessments of their needs, though we could not always be confident how people’s needs were being assessed/reviewed/monitored. Although people always had enough to eat and drink we were not assured about the quality of food being provided as we found several out-of-date items in the kitchen. People’s dietary requirements were not always accurately recorded or followed and records were not always as detailed as they should have been. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes though it was evident that some professional relationships were fractured. Although staff understanding of consent was mixed, we found necessary consent forms were in place for people to consent to various elements of their care. Staff monitored people’s health to try and support healthy living.

People were not always treated with kindness and compassion, though staff told us they protected their privacy. People’s preferences were not always supported. Whilst some people felt they were able to make choices, feedback around activities was mixed. Staff did not always respond to people’s immediate needs. Whilst the staff felt the service supported their wellbeing in some ways, staffing levels impacted this through their workload.

People did not always receive person centred care. Feedback from professionals regarding equity in experiences and outcomeswas not always positive but people and their relatives felt they received the care they needed. The service was not always easily accessible or safe due to some required maintenance. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback. People were involved in planning for the future where they wished to be.

It was difficult to determine the transparency and culture of the service due to conflicting information. The management team were visible and approachable throughout our inspection, but we found appropriate care was not always being delivered and the management had not identified many of the issues we have found. Staff knowledge around whistleblowing was not clear but staff were able to raise any concerns in team meetings. Governance and oversight of the service needed significant improvement. Although various professionals provided support to the service, relationships had become fractured and professionals did not always feel the service asked for help. The audits and oversight did not support a culture of continuous improvement. Staff felt they were treated equally, fairly and in a compassionate way.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we user our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.