Archived: Abba Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider and registered manager had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection. These included weekly Covid 19 testing for staff and every 28 days for people living in the home. Hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment (PPE) were available throughout the home. There were signs to remind staff and people about the use of PPE, importance of washing hands and regular use of hand sanitisers.

The infection control policy and people's risk assessments had been revised and updated in response to the pandemic. This helped ensure people were protected in the event of becoming unwell or in the event of a Covid 19 outbreak in the home. At the time of the inspection, two people were isolating in their rooms. They had been away on holiday, had not tested positive for Covid 19, but were required to isolate on their return consistent with current guidance. In addition, a member of staff who had supported them on holiday was self isolating at home. We found these processes to be effective and robust. People were complying fully with the rules.

People's mental well being had been promoted by innovative use of social media and electronic tablets so people could contact their relatives and friends. Staff had comprehensive knowledge of good practice guidance and had attended Covid 19 specialist training hosted by the local authority. There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support and ensure safeguards were in place should there be a staff shortage.

Policies and infection control processes were regularly reviewed when guidance changed. The home was clean and hygienic. All staff had received Covid 19 related supervision and had access to appropriate support to manage their wellbeing should it be required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Abba Care Home is a residential care home that at the time of inspection was providing accommodation and personal care to five people with mental health needs. The service can support up to six people. Accommodation is provided in six single bedrooms over two floors. The home is located in a rural area near Bacup in Lancashire.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they were well cared for and felt safe in the home. However, we found the service had not always followed safe practices in the recruitment of some staff members. We have made a recommendation about this in the 'safe' section of this report.

Although people received their medicines as prescribed, some aspects of medicines administration and storage were not always safe. We have made a recommendation about this in the 'safe' section of this report.

The interior of the home was clean and free from malodour. There was an outside area that incorporated a section with animals that people said they could safely access and enjoy.

The provider had a system to ensure staff documented any accidents or incidents which had taken place and there was learning from these incidents.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew the correct action to take to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Staff told us they felt well supported and received regular supervision during which they were able to discuss their professional development. 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. The provider had systems to assess and monitor people’s health and nutritional needs.

People told us staff treated them with dignity and were respectful. Our observations supported these views. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. People felt listened to and confident to raise any issues. We saw that where concerns had been raised, the registered manager had acted to resolve the matters.

Care plans contained information on people’s health and communication needs as well as their family background, religious needs and social interests. Activities were available for people to participate in if they wished. People and a relative were particularly complimentary around this aspect of the service

The registered manager had systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service. However, some of these did not incorporate documented input by the provider and a schedule of 'provider-led' checks is to be implemented.

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 26 June 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.

At the last inspection on 11 February 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service was not required to have a registered manager as the registered provider had day-to-day control of the service and was registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the service. Registered providers 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.

Although people received medicines as prescribed, we did note an error with the administration of medicine for one person on the morning of the inspection. We have made a recommendation about this in the ‘Safe’ section of this report. Medicines were stored securely to ensure they were safe. There were risk assessments which identified risks to people and management plans had been put in place to ensure people’s health and well-being were maintained.

People consented to the care and support they received. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained and understood their responsibilities in relation to MCA and DoLS.

People were safeguarded from the risks of abuse and improper treatment. Staff had received training on safeguarding and they were knowledgeable on the procedure to follow if they had any concerns. There were sufficient staff available to safely meet people’s needs.

People told us staff were kind and caring. We observed that staff treated people with respect and promoted their dignity. People were supported to communicate their views about how they wanted to be cared for.

People’s nutritional needs were met. People told us they enjoyed the choice of food that was available to them. People had access to food and drinks throughout the day. People were kept occupied and encouraged to participate in activities.

Staff were trained on various areas to ensure they had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to provide good care to the people they looked after. Staff received regular support and supervision to carry out their duties effectively.

The service liaised with various healthcare professionals to meet the needs of people.

People had their individual needs assessed and their care planned in a way that met their needs. People received care that reflected their preferences and choices. Reviews were held with people and their relatives to ensure people’s support reflected their current needs.

People had opportunities to share their views and give feedback about the service and these were acted upon. The service was subjected to regular quality checks to ensure the service was of good quality and met people’s needs.

We found that suitable arrangements were in place for the safe keeping and handling of medicines.

We found that the home was clean, warm and well ventilated. Three people told us they liked their rooms and had brought personal items such as a television and pictures for the walls.

All the people we asked praised the staff team for the support they provided. One person said, 'They're wonderful and always there when needed, I get on well with them all.'

Although people said they would complain if necessary there had not been any complaints for several years.