We carried out a review of the data available to us about Abbeygate Retirement Home 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 Abbeygate Retirement Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Abbeygate Retirement Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 25 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service is registered to support 27 people. In practice only 26 people are accommodated at any one time.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received care from staff who were well trained and committed to providing a high-quality service.
Not all safety checks were being recorded and improvements were needed to the way risks including risks associated with medicines were assessed and minimised. We have made recommendations regarding environmental risks and medicines handling.
Effective management systems were in place. Managers took positive steps to make sure lessons were learnt and action taken to make improvements. People were positive about the management of the service and staff enjoyed their work. Relatives were involved, and people felt any concerns they raised would be responded to promptly.
Staff were kind, knew people well and treated them with respect. People were encouraged and supported to take part in a wide range of activities and do the things they enjoyed. People had access to healthcare services and professionals and were supported with their nutritional needs.
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.
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 (published 21 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We inspected the home on 18 January 2017. The inspection was unannounced. There were 24 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.
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 (‘the provider’), 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.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of our inspection, the provider had submitted a DoLS application for one person people living in the home and was waiting for this to be assessed by the local authority. Staff understood the MCA and demonstrated their awareness of the need to obtain consent before providing care or support to people. Staff had documented decisions they had made in people’s best interests.
The registered manager and her team had worked hard to address the areas for improvement identified at our last inspection in September 2015. There were now sufficient staff to meet people’s care needs and a range of activities was organised to provide people with mental and physical stimulation.
There was a calm, relaxed atmosphere in the home and staff supported people in a kind and friendly way. Staff knew and respected people as individuals and provided responsive, person-centred care. People were provided with home-cooked food of good quality that met their individual needs and preferences.
People’s medicines were managed safely and staff worked closely with local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they required. People’s individual risk assessments were reviewed and updated to take account of changes in their needs. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns to keep people safe from harm.
Staff received the training they needed to care for people effectively and worked together in a friendly and mutually supportive way. The registered manager maintained a visible, 'hands-on' presence and was well-known to everyone connected to the home. A range of auditing and monitoring systems was in place to monitor the quality and safety of service provision.
Abbeygate Retirement Home is registered to provide care for up to 26 older people, including people living with dementia.
We inspected the home on 22 and 29 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced. There were 26 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of our inspection there was no one using the service who had their freedom restricted in order to keep them safe, although the manager was considering the need for an application in respect of one individual.
People felt safe using the service and were cared for by staff in way that maintained their dignity and respect. However, there was a shortage of staff in the care team which increased the risk to people’s safety and wellbeing.
The service had strong links with local healthcare professionals which meant people were able to access promptly any specialist support required. Medicines were managed safely.
Food and drink were provided to a high standard.
People and their relatives were involved in planning the care and support provided by the service. Staff listened to people and understood and respected their needs. Staff reflected people’s wishes and preferences in the way they delivered care. Staff understood how to identify, report and manage any concerns related to people’s safety and welfare.
Although some people were encouraged to pursue their personal interests, some people did not have enough to stimulation or occupation.
People and their relatives could voice their views and opinions to the manager and staff. The registered provider, the manager and staff listened to what people had to say and took action to resolve any issues as soon as they were raised with them. The manager reviewed untoward incidents and concerns to look for opportunities to improve policies and practices for the future.
Staff were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. They had received training and support to deliver a good quality of care to people, and an active training programme was in place to address identified training needs.
Staff delivered the care that had been planned to meet people’s needs and had a high degree of knowledge about their individual choices, decisions and preferences. There was a calm, homely atmosphere in the service and staff cared for people in a kind and friendly way.
There were systems in place for handling and resolving complaints and the manager and staff encouraged people and their relatives to raise any concerns. The manager demonstrated an open and accountable management style and provided effective support and leadership to the staff team. The manager and the registered provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the service provided for people.
We saw staff were polite and courteous to people and called people by their preferred name.
We found evidence that the people who use this service were provided with sufficient nutritious food and drink, appropriate to their needs. One person told us "The staff have gone out of their way to get me the special food I need."
There was evidence of protecting people from the risk of infection and of keeping all areas clean and tidy.
We saw an effective system for people to raise complaints about the service. One person told us "When I complained, the manager sorted it out for me."
There was evidence of effective policies for employing staff and for keeping these records.
We saw effective records were kept about the service users and these were stored securely.
One person we spoke with told us, 'I get on really well here. It's the best place round here. The staff encourage me to be independent and there's lots of activities to do.'
Another person said, 'The care staff treat me well. The food is good and they try to give you everything you want.'
We spoke with a person who was on a respite break. The person said, 'They are fantastic, friendly and treat you with absolute dignity and respect.'
During our visit we observed staff offering people friendly and comforting gestures. People were constantly reassured when they expressed concern and people told us they felt safe.