Abbots Care Limited (Hertfordshire)

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. The rating change was due in part to changes in how we report information.

This service scored 83 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started being supported by the service.

People and their relatives told us they had enough information and support to ensure the transition went well.

Staff told us people’s needs were assessed, planned for and the information was shared. A staff member said, “Whenever Abbots care have a new client, they come to do assessment, and a care-plan is prepared where we have access to go through their needs.”

Care plans were developed from the assessment completed prior to using the service, and through people’s involvement, which included important health, support information as well as people’s preferences and backgrounds. People and their relatives felt involved in this process.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received care and support in line with good practice and legislation. The provider had systems in place to help ensure staff were aware of what was required and what was good practice.

People were supported to eat and drink where this was part of their plan. This included staff providing drinks and snacks, so they were accessible for people when they had left. Some people had ready meals the staff heated for them, but some people told us staff learned how to make food the way they liked it.

Staff were given guidance and support to help ensure they could support people appropriately.

Systems in place checked staff were working in accordance with guidance, training and people’s needs.

The provider had introduced free welfare checks on those they considered most vulnerable. The provider told us, ‘Our community Facilitators (CFs) (community Supervisors/Field care supervisors) complete welfare pop in visits to clients, to those who are more vulnerable, or some who may be feeling low or live alone. We make time during our daily rotas to ensure they are not feeling isolated and have some communication with someone as many have no family or have been unable to see family. This ensures our clients are safe and looking after their wellbeing. This also allows us to pick up an any concerns they may have, or we notice and implement any additional care or tasks as we see may be required. Our CFs also provide our local guide to community services and interest groups, referring individuals to Abbots Friends for companionship and connecting them with local groups like Age UK and Herts Help.’

They told us the benefits of this were, ‘Our free welfare checks serve as a preventive measure, reducing the need for intensified care packages and hospital admissions. These checks allow for timely interventions, improvement in individuals health deterioration, preventing the need to increase packages of care and admissions to hospital, as we can monitor Individuals wellbeing through the free visits.’

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People, and their relatives, told us if they needed any health care input this was sought. A relative said the co-ordinators were very good in communicating with them and had a calendar of their family member’s hospital appointments so that carers would be available to take them when needed. However, some people felt when different care staff supported them, there was at times a lack of consistency and they needed to guide staff on their needs. The provider was aware this had at times been an issue. They had introduced a care round leader which meant if regular staff could not attend, they could visit in their place to ensure consistency. We noted there had been a reduction in concerns being shared.

Staff told us they worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people had the right care and support. This included mental health teams, district nurses and GPs. They knew how to access services people needed. Staff told us when they supported a new person, they read care plans where there was time or spoke with people. A staff member said, “Usually, if they are a first-time client and I ask them what is the reason that they have been hospitalised, or I talked to the next of kin.”

The service worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people received the right care and support. Feedback from a supporting healthcare professional stated, “The majority of the carers are of a good standard and experienced. They appear to provide a safe service to our patients. Clinical reviews and introductions are made on the first visit; this helps the initial introduction to the pathway.”

People’s care plans included a record of information obtained on commencing support from the service. This was transferred into and informed the care plan.

The provider always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People and their relatives told us they felt their physical, emotional and social needs were met. A person said, “I have a [health condition], they put the ointment on and make sure it’s healing up. They have reported it a while back, I then had the district nurse come to put a plaster on it.” Another relative said, “The regular people know. They always greet [person], acknowledge them, ask them. They always try to get [person] to do stuff. If they get grumpy, they are always able to deal with it.”

People’s support and care were reviewed regularly to ensure care plans were appropriate and meeting all of their needs.

A representative from the local authority said, “The provider’s training offer enables staff to support people with a range of needs, meaning that people can continue to be supported by a provider familiar to them as those needs change.”

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about how to support people to live a healthy life.

The provider was working with health professionals to pilot projects aimed at helping keep well in the community, prevent admissions to hospital, speed up discharge from hospital and promote their independence. Feedback from health professionals about these working relationships and benefits to people was positive.

In addition, there was a new system in place called ‘GP connect’ The provider told us, ‘The impact on the people we support has been significant. By having immediate access to up-to-date medical information, we can respond swiftly to changes in medication, adjust care plans and MAR charts in real time, and ensure the safe administration of medication. This promotes better health outcomes and helps to prevent errors or delays. Furthermore, we can proactively assist clients by collecting prescriptions on their behalf, even when this is not a commissioned task. This ensures they always have access to the medication they need, which helps them stay well and healthy in their own homes and communities.’

Reports reviewed showed that people had benefited from the work they were doing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care needs were reviewed regularly and in between if needs changed.

Staff were able to explain how they monitored people’s health and wellbeing. They were aware of what action to take if needed. A staff member said, “When there are changes and some which can be immediate, care coordinators send messages on (electronic messaging system) as notifications and in some cases manager or care coordinator can send you an email explaining some tasks for certain client whenever necessary.”

There were systems in place to have overview of people’s care needs, wounds and infections for example, and this included progress updates.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People told us they were able to make their own choices. A person said, “I am given the choice of what I want to wear.” Another person said, “They usually ask me first before they do anything.” Relatives felt people had their choices respected.

Staff had good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They were able to tell us how they incorporated the principles of the MCA in their day-to-day roles. For example, ensuring choices were offered to people and respected by staff. A staff member said, “As a carer, I would first read and understand the Care Plan of our client so that I will know how to talk and deal and take care of them.”

People’s care plans included information relating to capacity assessments. This stated if a person had capacity and where others had power of attorney to enable them to act in their best interests.

Plans were clear where people had capacity to make day to day decisions, but more support was needed for more complex decisions.