Abbot Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service. 

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. However, they did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Leaders did not always demonstrate a clear understanding of the experiences of people who required more individualised support, particularly those who experienced distressed reactions or had complex emotional and social needs.

The culture experienced by people was not always consistent across the service. Staff were kind and responsive to people's immediate physical care needs. However, support was sometimes task-focused and driven by routines rather than people's individual preferences, interests and wellbeing.

Although there was evidence of positive person-centred practice, this was not consistently embedded across the service. As a result, leaders could not always demonstrate they understood or responded effectively to the challenges faced by some people, particularly those at greater risk of social isolation, emotional distress or poorer experiences of care.

Staff were positive about the culture at the service. A staff member told us, “It is a good place to work, and I know people well so that helps every day to meet their needs.” Another staff member said, “Abbot Care Home truly feels like a family to me. The teamwork among carers, floor managers and administrative staff creates a warm, positive environment where resident-centred care is always the top priority.”

Leaders did not always have a full understanding of people's experiences or identify areas where care was not consistently person-centred.

During the assessment, we found some shortfalls relating to meaningful engagement, the consistency of people's experiences, and how effectively feedback and people's views were used to drive improvements. Although these issues had not always been identified by leaders prior to the assessment, they were responsive when concerns were raised and took action to address them.

The registered manager and leadership team demonstrated a commitment to improving the service and were open and transparent throughout the assessment process. They engaged positively with inspectors, acknowledged areas requiring improvement and took action in response to feedback. For example, records were reviewed and updated where gaps were identified, and leaders shared plans to address concerns regarding activity provision and people's engagement.

Staff spoke positively about the management team and described leaders as approachable and supportive. Staff told us they felt able to seek advice, raise concerns and contribute ideas. Leaders promoted an open culture and demonstrated integrity and honesty when discussing the service's strengths and areas for development.

While leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles, their oversight had not always been effective in identifying and addressing issues that affected people's experiences. As a result, although leadership was responsive and improvement focused, further work was needed to ensure people's experiences were consistently understood, monitored and used to drive sustained improvements across the service.

People and relatives spoke positively about the impact of the new registered manager. A relative told us, “I am beginning to respect what she is trying to do at the home. She is approachable and listens to people.” Another relative said, “I do know the management now and it is a plus, the decor has changed and it is clean and no smell.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt comfortable approaching managers and were confident concerns would be listened to. A staff member told us, “I am encouraged to speak up about poor care. I feel more comfortable in raising concern with superiors to make sure people receive safe and appropriate care.” Another staff member said, “We are strongly encouraged to speak up and practice open communication regarding care quality.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff spoke positively about working in a diverse workforce and told us leaders promoted an open and inclusive culture. A staff member told us, “I feel that the home is working well currently we are all working the same where previously due to the high number of managers nothing was consistent, I feel this is no longer a concern, and we all work as a team.”

The provider did not always have effective governance systems to identify, monitor and address risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing.

Oversight arrangements were not sufficiently robust to ensure concerns were identified and acted upon at an early stage. During the assessment, we identified areas where leaders had not fully recognised or responded to issues affecting people's experiences and outcomes before they were highlighted by inspectors.

Although the provider completed a range of audits and monitoring activities, these had not consistently identified all areas requiring improvement. For example, concerns relating to the consistency of care planning, monitoring of distressed reactions, and staff engagement with people had not always been identified through governance processes.

The provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people, relatives and staff; however, feedback indicated concerns were not always resolved to people's satisfaction, and leaders had not always used this information effectively to drive improvements.

When concerns were identified during the assessment, leaders were responsive and took action to address them. However, the need for inspectors to highlight these issues demonstrated that governance and oversight systems were not consistently effective in identifying risks and areas for improvement. As a result, leaders could not always be assured people were receiving consistently person-centred care that met their individual needs and preferences.

The provider worked with a range of external professionals to support people's care and treatment needs. However, feedback from partners about the quality of leadership and service delivery was mixed, indicating opportunities for improvement. One professional told us, “There is room for improvement, as I feel training could be expanded within wound care and they could be more effective with communication.” Another professional said, “I am happy with the service provided, but I do wish there were more staff at times.”

Despite these concerns, other professionals spoke positively about their experiences of working with the service. One professional told us, “Overall, I consider Abbot Care Home to be a well-managed service. The home has consistently demonstrated a positive culture, professionalism, and commitment to providing high-quality care.” They also described the environment as clean and well maintained and said staff were welcoming and dedicated to achieving positive outcomes for people. Another professional said, “I believe that [registered manager] manages the home extremely well, she is very knowledgeable and follows good processes. The home appears to be well maintained, and all staff appear supported by the manager.”

While the provider demonstrated a willingness to work collaboratively with partners and external professionals, the mixed feedback received indicated communication, staffing and aspects of clinical practice were not always experienced consistently. This meant leaders could not always be assured partnership working was fully effective in supporting positive experiences and outcomes for people.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the service. Although systems were in place to monitor quality and identify areas for development, these had not consistently identified or addressed issues affecting people's experiences and outcomes. As a result, opportunities to learn from feedback, observations and quality assurance processes were not always maximised.

Leaders were responsive when concerns were highlighted during the assessment and demonstrated a willingness to improve. However, some areas requiring development, including the consistency of person-centred care, meaningful engagement opportunities and the effectiveness of care planning, had not been fully recognised through the provider's own oversight processes. This indicated learning and improvement arrangements were not always sufficiently proactive.