You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Abbey Lodge Care Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 7 June 2018

This inspection took place on the 09 and 14 May 2018. The first day was an unannounced visit and the second day was announced to review records and speak with the registered manager and provider.

This was the first inspection of this service since registering with the Care Quality Commission on 19 February 2017.

Abbey Lodge Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Abbey Lodge is registered to provide accommodation for up to 26 people. At the time of inspection there were 21 people living at the home. Abbey Lodge is arranged over two floors, the second floor was for people who are more independent. Many of the people living at Abbey Lodge are living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.’

People were safe because there were sufficient levels of staff to meet people’s needs. Risks were identified, assessed and managed effectively. The provider had systems in place to minimise the risk of abuse and staff had a good knowledge and understanding of what abuse is and where to report concerns. The provider carried out appropriate pre-employment checks before staff started work.

Medicines were managed safely and staff had a good knowledge of when people required their ‘as required’ medication. Accidents and incidents were recorded and there were measures in place to review these to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. People were protected from the risk of infection because the home was kept clean.

Staff had the relevant skills and knowledge to meet people’s care and support needs. People and their relatives were positive about the care provided and our observations confirmed that staff were kind and caring. Staff sought consent before providing care to people and principles of the Mental Capacity Act had been followed when people lacked capacity to make specific decisions regarding their care needs.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and drink sufficient amounts of fluids. People had access to relevant health professionals and referrals made were timely and appropriate.

People and relatives we spoke with gave mixed views in relation to activities. Some people felt that there were not enough activities that were specific to people’s individual interests.

People, relatives and staff said they were kept up to date with any changes that were taking place and felt the management team was approachable. Relatives told us they felt confident to raise concerns with the registered manager and we found that complaints were dealt with appropriately.

Systems were in place to monitor and drive improvement within the home. We saw the registered manager developed an action plan each year to sustain improvements and highlight areas for improvement.

Relatives and staff spoke positively about the improvements the registered manager had made and staff told us they felt well supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

Inspection areas



Updated 7 June 2018

The service was safe.

People received care from staff who knew their individual needs well. There were enough staff to meet people�s needs. Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from abuse.

People were supported to take their medication as required to meet their health needs.

People were protected from the risk of infection. Staff wore protective clothing when required.



Updated 7 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people�s needs effectively. People�s consent was gained before providing care and people were given choices.

People had access to the relevant professionals when required.

People did not currently have access to outdoor space, this was in the process of being developed.



Updated 7 June 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring in their approach and supported people to make their own choices.

People�s dignity and privacy was maintained.

People were supported to be independent.



Updated 7 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People received person centred care because staff were knowledgeable about people�s preferences. Some people and relatives felt there were not enough person centred activities for people.

People had plans in place to support them at the end of their life. People and their relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.

Relatives felt able to raise concerns or issues with the registered manager and there was a system in place to monitor any complaints.



Updated 7 June 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Relatives and staff said there had been improvements since the registered manager had been at the home.

Staff were supported by the registered manager and felt listened to.