We carried out a review of the data available to us about Abbeydale - Derby 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 Abbeydale - Derby, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors, including professionals were subject to screening procedures, this included vaccination status and hand washing facilities.
There was a programme of regular COVID -19 testing for staff and people living in the service. This ensured action could be taken if anyone had a positive test.
Staff had received training in infection prevention and control. Staff were observed wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately. PPE stations were available across the service, to ensure staff had access to PPE when required.
The home was clean and tidy. Domestic staff levels had increased, and deep cleaning also took place in between occupants.
During the COVID - 19 outbreak the provider had closed the home to non-essential visitors. People were supported to continue to maintain contact with their relatives and friends through telephone calls and video calls.
The infection prevention and control policy was up to date with the latest guidance.
The service accommodates up to 41 people in a large property over three floors. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service. The service specialises in the care of older people and those living with dementia.
We found the following examples of good practice.
When people had tested positive for Covid-19, they followed the most recent government guidance. People isolated in their own rooms and were supported by staff. If there were several people who tested positive, they used a separate lounge area so that they would remain in a separate ‘bubble’ and not feel so isolated.
Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control, food hygiene and COVID-19. They had also been trained in hand washing and donning and doffing personal protective equipment.
A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service. This meant swift action could be taken if anyone received a positive test result.
We saw that cleaning took place throughout the day so that there was continuous cleaning taking place.
Policies, procedures and risk assessments related to COVID-19 were up to date which supported staff to keep people safe.
There was a robust infection prevention and control audit in place. If there were any areas for improvement identified, there was a clear audit trail and information on how this had been followed up.
We saw that each part of the home had a notice stating when that area had been deep cleaned. This ensured that they reduced the risk of infection further than regular cleaning could achieve,
Abbeydale is a nursing home registered to provide accommodation for up to 41 older people with needs relating to physical disabilities and dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 29 people using the service.
What life is like for people using this service:
People were safe at Abbeydale. One person said, “Of course I feel safe. The staff look after me and I’m never on my own.” The home was well-staffed and people received prompt care and support. People had their medicines when they needed them. The home was clean and fresh and staff knew how to minimise the risk of infection.
People were assessed before coming to the home to ensure it was right for them. The staff were well-trained and experienced. People enjoyed the meals served and had plenty of choice. Staff ensured people’s healthcare needs were met. The home and gardens were spacious and suitable for people with reduced mobility.
The staff were kind and caring. A relative said, “This is a caring home because it’s family run and everyone here becomes part of that family.” Staff got on well with people and spent time talking with them and ensuring they had everything they needed. People chose their own routines and how they wanted their care provided. Staff respected people and supported them to maintain their privacy and independence.
People received personalised care from staff who knew them well. There was a range of activities on offer. We saw a musical activity in progress. This proved popular and the activity co-ordinators ensured everyone had the opportunity to take part. The atmosphere in the home was calm and friendly. A relative said, “It’s a lovely place. When you walk in it feels like home and the care is second to none.”
The home was well-led. People, relatives and staff said the provider and registered manager were caring, approachable people who ensured the home provided safe care and support. They involved people in how the home was run, listened to them, and carried out their suggestions. The registered manager was committed to continual learning at the home through staff training and development programmes.
More Information is in the detailed findings below.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published on 9 August 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
This inspection took place on 20 and 22 April 2016. The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector.
A registered manager was in place. 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. The registered manager responsible for nursing was managing the service at the time of the inspection.
People using the service and the relatives we spoke with said they thought the home was safe. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area.
People's risk assessments provided staff with information of how to support people safely.
People using the service relatives told us they thought medicines were given safely and on time. Some improvements were needed to the way medicines were recorded to evidence that medicines were always properly supplied to people.
Staff were subject to checks to ensure they were appropriate to work with the people living in the service.
Staff had been trained to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have an effective choice about how they lived their lives, and the service had obtained legal approval for limiting people's choices when necessary for their best interests.
People had plenty to eat and drink, everyone told us they liked the food served to them and people were assisted to eat when they needed help.
People's health care needs had been protected by referral to health care professionals when necessary.
People and relatives we spoke with told us they liked the staff and got on well with them, and we saw many examples of staff working with people in a friendly and caring way.
People and their representatives were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
Care plans were individual to the people using the service and covered their health and social care needs.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that people's needs were responded to in good time.
Activities were organised to provide stimulation for people.
People, their relatives, staff and professionals were satisfied with how the home was run by the registered managers.
People and relatives told us they would tell staff if they had any concerns and were confident they would be properly followed up.
Management carried out audits and checks to ensure the home was running properly to meet people's needs and staff were expected to treat people with dignity and respect their human rights.
We inspected Abbeydale on 2 February 2015. The inspection was unannounced which means that we did not tell the provider before that we were coming to inspect the service. Abbeydale provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, treatment of disease, disorder or injury to people and diagnostic and screening services.
At our last inspection on 17 March 2014 the service was meeting the regulations we inspected with regard to consent to treatment and record-keeping.
On this inspection we found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 with regard to peoples’ care and welfare. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
A registered manager was in place. 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.
Staff had received training on how to protect people who used the service from abuse or harm. They demonstrated they were aware of their role and responsibilities in keeping people as safe as possible.
We found people largely received their prescribed medication in a safe way by staff trained in medication administration.
Detailed risk assessments had not always been undertaken to inform staff of how to manage and minimise risks to people's health from happening.
Improvements in some aspects of caring for people with dementia were needed in terms of providing more stimulating activities and improving the environment.
The provider supported staff by an induction and some ongoing support, training and development. However, comprehensive training had not been provided to all staff.
The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is legislation that protects people who may lack capacity to consent to their care and treatment. We found examples where the registered manager was following this legislation which informed us that people’s capacity to consent to specific decisions had been assessed appropriately.
People who used the service had their dietary and nutritional needs assessed and planned for. People received a choice of what to eat and drink and staff supported them to maintain their health.
People who used the service and relatives told us they found staff to be caring, compassionate and respectful. Our observations largely found staff to be kind and attentive to people’s individual needs.
People who used the service were, as far as possible, able to participate in discussions and decisions about the care and treatment provided.
People who used the service and their relatives had been to share information that was important to them about how they wished to have their needs met, though this process had not been fully completed.
The provider had internal quality and monitoring procedures in place. These needed to be strengthened to prove that necessary actions had been implemented.
The managers enabled staff to share their views about how the service was provided by way of staff meetings and supervision, although these opportunities had been infrequent.
We found the service had improved since our previous inspection visit of August 2013 and that people's consent was sought for their care and treatment. This meant that they were involved in making decisions about their care. We also found the recording of people's care and support needs had improved. They were up to date with relevant information and the manager was checking that this was maintained. This meant people were protected from unsafe care because the provider was taking steps to ensure care records were accurate and fit for purpose.
People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support they received. One person told us 'I'm lucky to be here' and another said 'If I need help I get it'. A relative described the care as fabulous. We saw that staff had warm relationships with people and one person told us 'The staff are lovely'. Most people using the service also told us they enjoyed their food and described the meals as good.
We found that two concerns brought to our attention in the last twelve months had been dealt with appropriately and the service had kept us informed of the outcomes.
We found there was a thorough procedure in place to ensure suitable people were recruited to work in the service.
Care records we saw were not completed consistently and did not always have accurate information. This meant there was the potential for care and support needs to be missed or provided incorrectly.
Most people and their families thought there were enough staff but two people told us they sometimes had to wait too long for assistance to use the toilet. One relative also told us they thought there were not enough staff on the afternoon shift and this meant their relative had to wait too long for assistance.
One person using the service told us that the service was 'very, very good' and a relative said they had been 'very accommodating' and that they were 'well impressed'.
Another relative told us medication was managed 'very well' and another described the care as 'superb'. One person using the service told us that they were 'quite alright here' and that health professionals were called in when necessary. They also said described the service as 'like family'.
We spoke to some visiting relatives who were present during our visit and asked about the provision of care. We were told 'I am generally happy with the care provided. There is not a lot for people to do and everything is a bit routine. I think staffing is reason that things are routine.'
The people using the service we spoke with told us 'There could be more to do.' and 'I think there is a set routine, there's not much to do.'
We asked some people living at Abbeydale if they felt the staff were competent in their duties. We were told 'Yes they seem competent enough.' and 'Yes they seem to know what they're doing'