Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Havering Care Homes

Abbcross Nursing Home

251 Brentwood Road, Romford, RM1 2RL

Goodpublished 30 January 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
People were protected from abuse and medicines were generally stored, administered and recorded safely. However, one end-of-life medicine protocol had an incorrect dose, there was no written protocol for homely remedies, and some risk assessments lacked important detail.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed before moving in, staff were trained and supported, and the home worked with health professionals. Inspectors noted that fluid targets were often identical rather than personalised.
Caring?
Good
Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make choices, maintain privacy and dignity, and follow their beliefs and preferences.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. Activities were available, but inspectors said the activity programme needed further work to provide more structured and meaningful opportunities.
Well-led?
Good
The home had a clear management structure, positive culture and systems for checking quality. Some audits had identified issues that were still being improved.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, well-managed care, but safety arrangements need improvement.

Inspectors visited without warning on 5 December 2023. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training and quality checks.

The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People were treated kindly, their choices were respected, staff were trained, and health professionals were involved in their care.

Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found incorrect information in one medicine protocol, no written protocol for homely remedies, and some risk assessments that needed more detail. Fluid targets were also not always tailored to people's needs.

The provider was given recommendations to follow best practice. The report says the management team took immediate action after the inspection and that CQC will continue to monitor information about the service.

What inspectors praised

  • Kind and respectful care

    People described staff as caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff speaking calmly, meeting personal care needs and helping people eat at their own pace.

    “We observed staff chatting with people politely and patiently, using calm and warm tones of voice.” from the report

  • Personalised support

    Care plans recorded people's communication, health, nutrition, personal care preferences and desired outcomes. Staff updated them when needs changed.

    “People received person-centred care that met their needs and ensured they had choice and control of how their care was delivered.” from the report

  • Trained staff and health support

    Staff received induction, refresher training and supervision. The home worked with GPs and other health professionals to support people's health.

    “The staff and management team worked well with health professionals to ensure people were in the best of health.” from the report

  • Positive management culture

    People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to gather views and identify improvements.

    “The provider had established a positive culture in the home.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Incorrect medicine protocol

    serious

    One protocol for an anticipatory end-of-life medicine contained a dose higher than the prescribed dose. The medicine was not given, but inspectors said there was a risk of error and harm.

    “there was a risk of error and the person receiving more than what had been prescribed.” from the report

  • Risk assessments needed more detail

    needs fixing

    Some assessments, including those for diabetes and catheter care, did not give staff enough guidance about what to do in specific situations. One pressure sore assessment also needed updating.

    “assessments for specific conditions such as diabetes or catheter care lacked some detail.” from the report

  • Fluid monitoring was not always personalised

    needs fixing

    Most people's fluid targets were set at the same level instead of being based on their individual needs. One person's recorded intake was often below the target and this needed review.

    “fluid targets for most people were set at an identical level” from the report

  • Activities programme needed development

    minor

    Activities such as bingo, arts and crafts and ball games took place. However, inspectors said the programme needed more structured and meaningful activities.

    “the activity programme for the home required further work and development” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have you made to the incorrect anticipatory end-of-life medicine protocol, and how do you check that all medicine protocols are accurate?
  2. 02Where can we see the written protocols for homely remedies, and who checks that they remain suitable for each person?
  3. 03How have you improved risk assessments for diabetes, catheter care and pressure sore prevention?
  4. 04How are each person's fluid targets set, monitored and reviewed when their intake is below target?
  5. 05What new structured and meaningful activities have been added since the inspection?

This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the overall quality of the home, including both the premises and the care provided, and assessed all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Abbcross Nursing Home

5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Abbcross Nursing Home →

  2. January 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. April 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Same provider

Other services run by Havering Care Homes Ltd

1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Nearby

Other care homes near Romford

All in Havering

Manor Lodge

Romford, RM1 · 0.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 11 months agocare home

Ashling House

Hornchurch, RM11 · 0.9 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Ashgate House

Romford, RM1 · 1.0 km
Good
Residential
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Ashking House

Romford, RM1 · 1.0 km
Good
Residential
Rated 3 years agocare home