We carried out a review of the data available to us about ABC Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about ABC Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received good care and support from staff who were happy and motivated. People told us they got on well with staff and that staff treated them with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to take an active part in planning their own care and in the running of the service.
People felt safe and were able to call staff in the event of an emergency. People were protected because staff were trained in safeguarding adults and felt confident in reporting any concerns. People received safe support with their medicines when required. Improvements in medicine administration had been made in response to a high number of errors. Staff spoke positively about the improvements that had been made.
Care was person centred in nature and took account of people’s individual preferences and wishes. This was reviewed regularly so that care remained current. Activities and events were planned to encourage people to socialise and build friendships. A committee had been formed to look at how activities and events could be improved in the future.
Staff received good training and support in their roles. The registered manager acted on requests for specific training. For example, staff had requested end of life training and this was in the process of being organised. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service was well led. There were systems in place to monitor safety and quality, and action was taken when shortfalls were identified. The staff steam was motivated and valued and told us they communicated and worked well together.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (report published 26 August 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
We carried out this unannounced inspection on 28 July 2017.
At our last inspection in April 2016 we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. One was because people were not protected against risks associated with medicines due to the lack of proper and safe management systems. The other was because people were not protected against risks associated with the lack of proper auditing of medicines management systems.
At this inspection we saw the provider had taken the action they had identified in their action plan. As a result improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of these regulations.
We did not find any breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 during this inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager had registered with CQC in September 2016.
Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed. The registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Risks were assessed and when required plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work with people to assess their suitability.
The service was effective in meeting people’s needs. Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. Arrangements were made for people to see healthcare professionals including a GP when they needed to do so. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was provided in ways that were easy to understand.
The service was responsive to people’s needs. People received person centred care and support. Where it was part of people’s care package the service offered a range of activities and encouraged them to maintain their hobbies and interests. People were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes.
The service was well led. The vision, values and culture of the extra care housing service were clearly communicated and understood by people, staff and others. The registered manager provided good leadership and management. An effective quality assurance system was in place. This meant the safety and quality of service people received was monitored on a regular basis and where shortfalls were identified they were acted upon.
This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with us.
ABC Centre provides personal care for tenants living at ABC Centre. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people were being supported with personal care at the service.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run.
The system for administering medicines was not effective at keeping people safe from potential risks. The administration records did not ensure that people received their medicines safely and as prescribed. We also identified errors with the proper administration specialist medicines. The risks associated with medicine administration identified during our inspection meant that there was not effective and safe management of medicines.
This was in breach of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and you can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People told us they felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and how to protect people from harm. There were plans in place to identify risks due to people’s health or mobility and to make sure these were minimised without intruding on people’s privacy and independence. Staff told us they liked working at the service and that there was good team work. Staff were supported through training, regular supervisions and team meetings.
The manager and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are safeguards put in place to protect people where their freedom of movement is restricted. There were no restrictions at the time of our inspection and we were assured that appropriate action would be considered if any concerns about this were identified.
People were supported to maintain their health and had access to services such as a GP or dentist when needed. Where people needed support with eating and drinking appropriate professionals were involved.
There was a caring and friendly atmosphere in the service. People told us that staff were kind and that their privacy and dignity were respected. Care plans were person centred and showed that individual preferences were taken into account.
Care plans gave clear directions for staff about the support people needed to have their needs met.
People’s needs were regularly reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the support people received.
People had opportunities to make comments about the service and how it could be improved.
The manager was new in post and had a clear vision about how they wanted the service to develop. Staff told us that there was a culture of respect and their priority was to deliver person centred care.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care and to review if improvements had been made.
We identified that the provider was not meeting regulatory requirements and was in breach of a number of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.