- Care home
Abbot Care Home
Assessment report published 13 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Dates of Assessment: 2 September to 21 September 2026. Abbot Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation with nursing and/or personal care for up to 117 people.
At our last inspection (report published 11 May 2024) we found a breach of regulation. This inspection was to follow up on previous enforcement action that was taken during our previous inspection. At this assessment whilst some improvements had been made relating to the previous breach, further concerns were identified and 3 breaches of regulations related to person centred care, safe care and treatment and governance were identified. This was a full comprehensive inspection.
Care records and care plans did not always provide an accurate or complete account of people's needs. There was not always a clear rationale recorded in care plans for why people were receiving care in bed.
People were not always supported in accordance with their individual care plans. Records relating to distressed reactions from people were incomplete and did not consistently demonstrate the use of person-centred strategies identified within care plans.
People did not always receive person-centred care that reflected their individual needs, preferences and assessed risks. Observations identified limited meaningful engagement, particularly on areas such as Moorhen, Kingfisher 1 and Kingfisher 2. We observed staff interactions often focused on completing tasks rather than promoting wellbeing, occupation and emotional support. However, we also saw some positive interactions throughout the home during our visits.
Whilst we identified there were enough staff to meet people's care needs during our onsite visits, staffing arrangements did not always allow sufficient time for meaningful engagement and personalised support. However, we did observe a very positive activity. The provider explained recently members of their activity/lifestyle team had left, and they had recruited new staff into these roles.
Governance systems were not consistently effective in identifying and addressing these issues. Audits completed by the provider had not identified several concerns found during inspection, including care planning inconsistencies and documentation gaps. Incident analysis did not always identify all themes and trends, there was limited evaluation of whether actions taken had been effective, and no meaningful analysis of distressed reaction monitoring records were evident. However, the senior team responded proactively to our feedback and were actively addressing the issues identified within this report, including sending us a service improvement plan.
We also found examples of positive practice across several areas of the service. People were supported to access healthcare services when required, systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse, medicines were generally managed safely and minor issues found had now been resolved, infection prevention and control procedures were followed, and people and relatives were able to share feedback about the service.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about their experience of the service. Many spoke positively about individual staff members, describing them as kind, caring and supportive, and several people told us they felt safe and well cared for.
Some people were complimentary about the activities, meals, and cleanliness of parts of the home. One person told us, "The staff here are very good. They will do anything I ask them to do," while others described staff as "lovely" and "very kind."
Other people reported seeing recent positive changes. One person said, "To begin with, we were a bit disappointed with the place, and they didn't inform us of a few things. However, we have noticed positive changes, and it is now a lot better. On the whole, they are very good."
Another person added, "Since the new manager has taken over, she has introduced some new ideas, and I am impressed with them. They have a 'day in the life of a resident' initiative and make sure they focus on individuals."
A relative also told us, "[Family member] is up and about each day. Staff will come and encourage them to join activities, and they will walk with [family member] to support them in attending."
However, people's experiences were not consistently positive. Several people and relatives reported limited opportunities for meaningful engagement, time outdoors and personalised support. Some people said they would like greater access to outside spaces but felt this was dependent on staff availability. One relative felt improvements could be made to enhance people's quality of life and social opportunities. Another said, “I don’t see a lot of interaction with residents. They have activities but [family member] won’t go.” As previously stated, additional lifestyle staff had been recruited and the senior staff told us they would be working with staff to improve day to day engagement.
Observations during the inspection reflected some of this feedback. Whilst a well-attended group activity demonstrated positive engagement for some people, other communal facilities were not being utilised and there was limited meaningful interaction observed on some units.