You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 November 2018

The inspection took place on 25 October 2018 and was unannounced, so no-one connected to the home knew we were visiting the home that day. The home was previously inspected in November 2017 when we judged the overall rating of the service to be 'Requires Improvement’. This was because certain records did not always provide enough information. At this inspection we found improvements had been made, and records fully reflected people’s care, treatment and any risks associated with that care.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘The Abbey’s’ on our website at’

The Abbeys is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The Abbeys provides personal care and support for up to 80 people, this includes people living with dementia. There are 75 bedrooms in two separate buildings, the main building and Abbeydale. The home is located on the outskirts of Rotherham and has good access to local amenities and public transport links. At the time of our inspection there were 54 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

Staff supported people in a compassionate, caring, responsive and friendly manner. They encouraged them to be as independent as possible, while taking into consideration their abilities and any risks associated with their care. All the people we spoke with made positive comments about how staff delivered care and said they were happy with the way the home was managed.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse.

Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people were safe. Where possible, people had been involved in planning their care. Care plans outlined peoples’ needs and risks associated with their care, as well as their abilities and preferences. Since our last inspection the information in care plans about how individual people were assisted to move using a hoist had improved.

Recruitment procedures aimed to make sure staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff were trained and supported to develop their skills, so they could provide people with the standard of care they required. There was enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

Medication was managed safely and administered by staff who had completed training to carry out this role.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Since the last inspection we saw decisions made in people’s best interest had followed the correct procedure and accurately recorded.

People received a varied and healthy diet that offered choice and met their needs. Everyone we spoke with was complementary about the meals provided.

There was a range of social activities and events available for people to take part in, if they wished to.

The service had an open and positive culture that encouraged involvement of people using the service, their families and staff. The registered manager, supported by senior managers in the company, was visible and promoted teamwork.

People were encouraged to raise concerns or complaints and were asked for feedback about the service they received. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and had a clear

Inspection areas



Updated 16 November 2018

The service was safe.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people.

Recruitment processes checked if potential staff were suitable to work at the home. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people�s needs.

Medication was managed and administered safely.



Updated 16 November 2018

The service was effective.

The service was effective.

Staff had access to a structured induction and a programme of on-going training and support.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) legislation were being met.

Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure people�s nutritional and hydration needs were met.



Updated 16 November 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with compassion, kindness and understanding by staff who were caring and considerate.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Staff knew the best way to support individual people, while maintaining their independence and respecting their choices.



Updated 16 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in developing care plans that provided staff with detailed guidance on how to meet their needs and preferences.

People had access to a programme of social activities which provided variety and stimulation.

People were aware of how to make a complaint and were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and addressed promptly.



Updated 16 November 2018

The service was well led.

An effective management team helped to make sure the home ran smoothly.

Systems to assess how the home was operating identified areas needing attention, which meant shortfalls were addressed promptly.

People�s views were gained to enable the provider to improve the service offered.