Rated Care Homes

Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 3 ratings

    Rated Good at every inspection since 2016.

  • 6 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 71 of 90

    rated care homes in Leicester are rated Good, like this one.

Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House: inspection record

Care home, 25 beds, Leicester

Rated Good in May 2026.

Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House: 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

  1. G
    Cherre Residential Care Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. RI
    Ashton Lodge Residential Home Requires improvement, 0.1 miles away
  3. G
    Agnes House Good, 0.1 miles away
  4. RI
    A S Care Requires improvement, 0.2 miles away
  5. G
    Barclay House Good, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Leicester

See all care homes in Central Leicester

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 1 May 2026 (assessment visit 5 February 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 2, 3 and 4 March 2026. Abberdale House a residential care home providing support to older people, specialising in caring for individuals with dementia, mental health conditions and physical disabilities. Care is delivered over 2 floors, with passenger lift access. Abberdale House provides personal care and accommodation for up to 25 people. On the day of inspection, 24 people were living in the service.

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

This assessment was prompted by the length of time since our last inspection.

The atmosphere in the home was welcoming, and people appeared comfortable in their surroundings. Some people expressed themselves vocally, shouting or singing, and staff responded to this calmly and with patience reflecting their familiarity with the people’s needs. There was clear evidence of warm, genuine relationships between the people and staff. Feedback from relatives was mostly positive, and stakeholders also expressed positive views, indicating people felt well supported. The environment was adapted to meet both general and individual needs. Some environmental concerns were identified during the assessment; however, these were brought to the attention of the registered manager at the time and were addressed promptly.

Although monitoring of people’s anxiety and/or distress was in place, staff did not always record the effects or outcomes following incidents, which limited oversight of how interventions were monitored. Medicines were generally managed safely; however, further improvements were needed to ensure protocols were in place when people had medicines prescribed to take to help them to calm when needed.

People’s health needs were regularly monitored, and generally action was taken when changes were identified. However, best-interest decisions had not been documented in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, leaving no evidence that decisions made on behalf of people who lacked capacity were lawful or aligned with their best interests. The provider was also operating across 2 systems, which resulted in information not being consistently captured. 1 system indicated medicines were out of stock; however, this was not accurate, highlighting the risks of discrepancies and errors between systems.

People told us they felt safe and protected from harm and abuse. Staff had received relevant safeguarding training, and the provider had robust recruitment processes in place to ensure staff were recruited safely.

People were supported to maintain their relationships, and their relatives could visit the home at any time they wished.The service offered a range of activities, both within the home and in the community, to support people’s individual interests and ensure people remained connected to the things that mattered to them.

Complaints were taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. People and their relatives told us that they felt that if they had a complaint, they could raise it, and action would be taken.

Staff responded to people promptly and told us they felt well supported by the leadership team to carry out their roles effectively. Leaders were visible and approachable and had fostered an open and inclusive culture within the service. Staff were actively encouraged to share their views and feedback through a variety of methods, including team meetings, supervision sessions and informal discussions, ensuring that their voices were heard and acted upon.

The provider and registered manager were highly responsive throughout the inspection process and demonstrated a proactive approach in taking swift action to address any concerns raised.

Overall, experiences of the service were positive. People told us they felt happy and safe living at the home, and this was reflected through our observations throughout the inspection.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe

    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 Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Required 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.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective

    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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring

    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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive

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

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    Well-led

    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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 1 May 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  3. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Wendy Tams
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

7 inspection reports, latest 2 March 2022. Latest assessment published 1 May 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

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
07773854 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Leicester City 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 Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 25 beds at Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House.
When was Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House was published on 1 May 2026.
Who runs Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House?
Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House is run by Abberdale Limited.
What is Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 1 May 2026.

Contact

Address
165, 167, 169 Hinckley Road, Leicester, LE3 0TF Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Cherre Residential Care Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. RI
    Ashton Lodge Residential Home Requires improvement, 0.1 miles away
  3. G
    Agnes House Good, 0.1 miles away
  4. RI
    A S Care Requires improvement, 0.2 miles away
  5. G
    Barclay House Good, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Leicester

See all care homes in Central Leicester