Rated Care Homes

Abode

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    Its last inspection improved it from Inadequate to Requires improvement.

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 61 of 381

    rated care homes in Lancashire are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Abode: inspection record

Care home, 22 beds, Lancashire

Rated Requires improvement in August 2026, up from Inadequate.

Abode: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Bluebell House Residential Care Home (Good, 0.2 miles away) and Victoria House (Good, 0.2 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Alexandra Nursing Home - Poulton-le-Fylde Requires improvement, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
  3. G
    Victoria House Good, 0.2 miles away
  4. G
    Breck Lodge Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. G
    Primrose Bank Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Lancashire

See all care homes in Poulton-le-Fylde

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 3 August 2026 (assessment visit 16 April 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 9 June to 10 June 2026. We undertook the assessment to check compliance against breaches of the legal regulations.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective No rating
  • Caring No rating
  • Responsive No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

Abode is a residential care home which provides personal care for up to 22 older people, younger adults and people living with dementia. At the time of the assessment there were 22 people living at the service. We assessed all quality statements under the five key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well led.

At the last assessment in April 2025, the service was found to be in breach of 6 legal regulations in relation to person centred care, safe care and treatment, the environment, good governance, staffing levels and recruitment. At this assessment we found insufficient improvements had been made and the provider remained in continued breach of 2 regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We also identified a breach in regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

Significant concerns were identified across several areas of the service. Risks were not always effectively assessed, managed or reviewed, and care plans did not consistently contain accurate or up-to-date information to guide staff in providing safe care. Medicines were not always managed safely, with concerns identified around storage, recording, administration processes and monitoring. We also found significant environmental safety issues, including fire safety concerns, unsafe storage arrangements, hazards within the grounds and inadequate oversight of equipment safety. People were not always treated with dignity due to the environment.

Governance and quality assurance systems were ineffective and had failed to identify many of the concerns we found during the assessment. Audits lacked detail, did not always drive improvement and had not identified known risks relating to care planning, medicines management, environmental safety and restrictive practices. Leadership oversight was insufficient and there was limited evidence of a culture of learning, reflection and continuous improvement. Communication within the service was not always effective, and people, relatives and staff did not consistently feel involved in decisions or improvements.

Although the provider took immediate action to address a number of concerns during the assessment, we found widespread shortfalls in safety, governance, risk management and person-centred care. These issues meant people were exposed to avoidable risks and improvements were required to ensure care was consistently safe, effective, responsive and well led.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who responded appropriately to their immediate needs. People had access to healthcare services when required, safeguarding processes were in place, and staff received training, supervision and support to carry out their roles. The service was clean, infection prevention and control arrangements were effective, and people told us they felt safe and well cared for by staff.

This service has been in Special Measures since 6 June 2025. The provider demonstrated some improvements that have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the ways people’s medicines were managed, the environment and the management of safety and risk.

  2. Effective

    No rating

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

    This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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

    This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

    This meant people’s needs were not always met.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 the good governance of the service.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 3 August 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 3 August 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 3 August 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  4. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 3 August 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.

Registration details

Registered manager
Arlene Day
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
13885253 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Lancashire County Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Abode provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Abode as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Abode have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 22 beds at Abode.
When was Abode last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Abode was published on 3 August 2026.
Who runs Abode?
Abode is run by Abode Healthcare Ltd.
What is Abode's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 3 August 2026.

Contact

Phone
01253 921905
Address
58 Moorland Road, Poulton-le-fylde, FY6 7EU Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Bluebell House Residential Care Home (Good, 0.2 miles away) and Victoria House (Good, 0.2 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Alexandra Nursing Home - Poulton-le-Fylde Requires improvement, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
  3. G
    Victoria House Good, 0.2 miles away
  4. G
    Breck Lodge Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. G
    Primrose Bank Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Lancashire

See all care homes in Poulton-le-Fylde