Archived: Abbey Care Home

Updated 7 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 7 August 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector accompanied by an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we looked at concerns raised and information we already held about this service. This included details of its registration, previous inspection reports, action plans submitted and notifications the provider had sent us. We contacted the host local authority with responsibility for commissioning care from the service to seek their views.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with five people using the service and four relatives. We spoke with six members of staff. This included the registered manager, deputy manager, two senior care assistants, one care assistant and a housekeeper. We also spoke with a social care professional visiting the service.

We examined various documents. These included four care records relating to people who used the service, eight medicine administration records, three staff files including staff recruitment, training and supervision records, minutes of staff meetings, audits and various policies and procedures including adult safeguarding procedures. We observed how people were supported and how staff interacted with people. We used the Short Observational Framework for inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

Updated 7 March 2018

Abbey Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Abbey Care Home accommodates 20 people in one adapted building. The accommodation is arranged over two levels. All bedrooms had en-suite toilet facilities with a shared bathroom on each floor and a shower room on the ground floor. We inspected the service on 7 August 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. There were 14 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

At the last inspection on 24, 30 and 31 August 2016 we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements relating to infection control practices, risk assessment, risk of harm when moving around the service and meeting peoples individual needs by the design and decoration of the service. These actions had been completed.

People told us they felt safe using the service and their relatives agreed. Staff received training to protect people from the risk of abuse, had appropriate guidance and knew how to report safeguarding concerns. Recruitment checks were in place to ensure new staff were suitable to work at the service. There were enough staff available to meet the needs of people using the service.

Risk assessments were completed and management plans put in place to enable people to receive safe care and support. Staff had good understanding about infection control procedures and used personal protective clothing such as aprons and gloves to prevent the spread of infection. There were systems in place to manage people's medicines so they received them when needed.

There were effective systems in place to maintain the safety of the premises and equipment. Lessons were learnt when accidents and incidents occurred to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service and they had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their needs. Personalised care plans were in place and reflected people’s needs and were updated regularly.

Staff knew people they were supporting including their preferences to ensure personalised care was delivered. People were offered a choice of nutritious food and drink to maintain good health.

Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s privacy, dignity, independence and choice. Staff had a clear understanding of the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and appropriate applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had been made.

Staff received regular supervision, annual appraisals and training in line with the provider’s policies to ensure they had the qualifications, skills and experience to support people using the service.

People using the service and their relatives told us the service was caring and we observed staff supporting people with kindness, in a caring and respectful manner. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged independence. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint, however they told us they had not needed to.

People, their relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. Staff had positive views about the leadership and staff culture of the service. The service had systems in place to seek the views of people and their relatives regarding the quality of the service. Quality monitoring systems were in place to identify areas of improvement.