Abode

Ratings

• Overall

  Inadequate

• Safe

  Inadequate

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Requires improvement

• Responsive

  Requires improvement

• Well-led

  Inadequate

Our view of the service

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always had enough to eat and drink we were not assured about the quality of food being provided as we found several out-of-date items in the kitchen.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.

People's experience of this service

People were generally positive about the quality of their care. They felt safe and told us they were involved in planning their care. People said they received support from staff who treated them as individuals. People told us they were happy with the care they were receiving. Feedback from people and their relatives around activities was mixed. One person described how they would like to be offered alternative dietary options that met their wishes, though everyone else we spoke with was happy with the food. Both people and their relatives spoke highly of the management. While the people we spoke with expressed they were happy with their care, our assessment found the care elements of the care did not meet the expected standards.