Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Johnson Care

Abbey House

Stokes Drive, Leicester, LE3 9BR

Goodpublished 3 July 2025, 13 months ago

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

The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Staffing and long waits

    serious

    There 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

    serious

    Some 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

    serious

    Some 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

    serious

    Audits 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and call bell response times since the inspection?
  2. 02How are transdermal patch records, handwritten medicine records and as-required medicine protocols now checked?
  3. 03How have stained mattresses and cushion covers, chipped paintwork and limescale been dealt with?
  4. 04How will staff make sure people receive timely toilet support and are treated with dignity?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Abbey House

5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. June 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Abbey House

  2. May 2022Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

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

  3. April 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2017Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. 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.

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.

Same provider

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.

Harvey House

Leicester, LE9
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Thurn Court

Leicester, LE5
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Arbor House

Leicester, LE5
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Cooper House

Leicester, LE2
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 12 months agocare home

Curtis Weston House

Wigston, LE18
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Hadrian House

Leicester, LE4
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Leicester

Fosse Court

Leicester, LE3 · 0.9 km
Not yet rated
ResidentialDementia
Not yet ratedcare home

The Chantry

Leicester, LE3 · 0.9 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

Clarefield House

Leicester, LE3 · 1.4 km
Not yet rated
Residential
Not yet ratedcare home