You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

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

Abbey Chase Nursing Home accommodates a maximum of 62 older people in one adapted building. There were 58 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

The inspection took place on 23 and 30 August 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. We gave notice of the second day of inspection as we wanted to ensure the registered manager was available to meet with us.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection in January 2018 we found the provider was breaching regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, privacy and dignity and governance. The home was not adequately secure as people were able to enter the building unchecked. Standards of fire safety were not adequate. Some medicines and potentially harmful chemicals were not stored securely and staff did not always follow appropriate infection control procedures. Some staff did not engage with people when providing their care and support. We observed that two people were not supported to eat safely and that staff did not always respect people’s choices about the food they ate. The provider’s quality monitoring systems had not always been effective in identifying concerns.

The provider sent CQC an action plan in March 2018 setting out the action they would take to meet the regulations.

At this inspection we found the provider had implemented the action plan, which had led to improvements in safety and the way in which people were cared for. Standards of security and fire safety had improved. Medicines were stored securely. On the first day of our inspection, the temperature in one clinical room was too high for the safe storage of medicines. The provider had addressed this by the second day of the inspection and moved the medicines to a safe environment. The home was clean and hygienic and staff maintained appropriate standards of infection control. Although we saw some cleaning products accessible in a communal area on the first day of the inspection, the provider’s monitoring data demonstrated that improvements had been made and maintained and that this represented an isolated incident.

The provider had worked with staff to ensure they considered people’s needs holistically, not just their care needs. People received the support they needed to eat and drink safely. The provider had improved the systems used to monitor quality and safety.

People felt safe and secure at the home. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report any concerns they had. There were enough staff on each shift to keep people safe. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures because checks were carried out on staff before they began work. There were safe systems of medicines administration and recording. Staff who administered medicines were trained and their competence observed before they were authorised to do so. There were plans in place to ensure people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency. Staff carried out health and safety checks were carried out regularly. Accidents and incidents were recorded and action taken to improve when things went wrong.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home to ensure staff could provide the care they needed. Staff had an induction when they started work and had access to the training they needed to ca

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people had been assessed and suitable steps taken to minimise any risks identified.

Medicines were managed safely.

There were sufficient staff deployed to keep people safe.

People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures.

Staff understood their role in keeping people safe and their responsibility to report any concerns they had.

There were plans in place to ensure people would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency.

Staff maintained appropriate standards of infection control.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was effective.

People’s care was provided in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the home to ensure staff could provide their care.

Staff had an induction when they started work and the training they needed to carry out their roles.

Staff had opportunities to discuss their performance and training needs.

People enjoyed the food provided and were satisfied with the choice of meals.

People’s dietary needs were assessed and communicated to catering staff.

Staff monitored people’s healthcare needs and supported them to access treatment if they needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.

People’s choices about their care were known and respected by staff

Friends and families were able to be involved in the life of the home and were made welcome when they visited.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was not consistently responsive to people’s needs.

People who were cared for in bed may be at risk of social isolation.

People had opportunities to take part in group activities, events and occasional outings.

People’s individual needs and preferences were reflected in their care plans.

People and their relatives had opportunities to contribute their views about the home.

Complaints were managed and investigated appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was well-led.

Systems of quality monitoring had improved.

Staff worked effectively with other professionals and implemented any guidance they advocated.

Staff told us the registered manager and senior staff were approachable and supportive.

The manager worked co-operatively with other agencies when required and had notified CQC of any significant events.