CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Johnson Care
Abbey House
Stokes Drive, Leicester, LE3 9BR
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe staffing levels, medicines and dignity concerns, with warning notices issued.
This was an unannounced inspection after concerns about staffing, people’s needs not being met and the condition of the home. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, policies and audits.
The home was not always safe. People sometimes waited a long time for help, including with going to the toilet. Medicines records were incomplete, risks were not always fully assessed, and some areas and equipment were dirty or in disrepair.
Care was not always effective or person-centred. Mealtimes could be noisy and rushed, training was not always up to date, and people were not always supported to make choices. Staff knew people well, safeguarding arrangements were in place, and people enjoyed activities.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not rated in this inspection. The previous overall rating was Good.
Safe recruitment
The home completed the required checks before staff started work.
“We found appropriate checks such as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had been completed prior to staff starting.” from the report
Staff knowledge
Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and the support they required.
“Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and the support they required.” from the report
Activities
People frequently enjoyed the activities, and staff adapted them when needed.
“We saw there was a comprehensive activity plan at the service.” from the report
Healthcare support
Records showed that staff made referrals when people’s health needs changed and helped people get emergency care when needed.
“Records demonstrated referrals were made to healthcare professionals when people's needs changed.” from the report
Staffing and long waits
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs. Call bell records showed waits of more than 20 minutes on 22 occasions, with the longest wait over 58 minutes.
“records for October demonstrated people waited longer than 20 minutes on 22 occasions, with the longest being over 58 minutes.” from the report
Cleanliness and maintenance
seriousSome mattresses and cushion covers were stained and smelled unpleasant. Chipped paint and limescale were also found, creating infection risks.
“We identified concerns with the cleanliness and upkeep of people's living accommodation, including multiple mattresses and cushion covers which were stained and malodorous.” from the report
Dignity and toilet support
seriousSome people waited a long time for help with toileting and experienced incontinence. Inspectors said people were not always treated with dignity and respect.
“I have had to wait up to 2 hours to be taken to the toilet by which time it was too late.” from the report
Weak checks and follow-up
seriousAudits identified some problems but did not lead to effective improvements. Medicines checks were also missed at times when the manager was absent.
“Systems and processes failed to identify concerns in relation to infection control.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and call bell response times since the inspection?
- 02How are transdermal patch records, handwritten medicine records and as-required medicine protocols now checked?
- 03How have stained mattresses and cushion covers, chipped paintwork and limescale been dealt with?
- 04How will staff make sure people receive timely toilet support and are treated with dignity?
- 05How are audits and the action plan being monitored, especially when the registered manager is absent?
This was a focused inspection prompted by concerns about staffing, people’s needs and the premises; only Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated, while Caring and Responsive were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 June 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.
Every inspection of Abbey House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2015.
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.
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.
Other services run by Leicestershire County Care Limited
11 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.