We carried out a review of the data available to us about Abba Residential 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 Abba Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Abba Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal care to four people with mental health needs at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to five people in one building.
People’s experience of using this service
People using the service had risk assessments carried out to protect them from the risks of avoidable harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. Medicines were managed safely and people were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. The provider had a system in place to learn lessons from accidents and incidents.
Staff were supported in their role with training and supervision. People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service. Staff supported people with their nutritional, hydration and healthcare 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.
Staff demonstrated they knew people and their care needs well. People told us staff were caring. The provider and staff understood how to provide a fair and equal service. People were involved in their care planning and were encouraged to make choices. Staff understood how to maintain people’s privacy, dignity and independence.
Care plans were detailed and personalised. Staff understood how to provide a personalised care service. The provider understood how to meet people’s communication needs. People were able to participate in activities which interested them. There was a system in place for people to make a complaint. The provider had an end of life care policy which gave guidance to staff about how to provide this should this be required.
People and staff spoke positively about the leadership in the service. The provider carried out quality checks to identify areas for improvement. People were asked to give feedback about the service through a feedback survey and through individual meetings. Staff had regular meetings so they could be updated on service development and people’s wellbeing. The provider worked jointly with other agencies to achieve good outcomes for people.
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 on 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 in March 2015 the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.
People were supported to be safe from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about the different types of abuse people might be vulnerable to and how to escalate any concerns they had about people being abused. Care files contained robust risk assessments that had been agreed with people. These ensured people were supported to take risks in a safe way and protected from avoidable harm. The home had a small and stable staff team who had been recruited in a way that ensured they were suitable to work in a care setting. The registered manager told us they would ensure they kept records of staff interviews in the future as they had not been keeping these records appropriately. People were supported to take their medicines in a safe way. The registered manager took advice on secondary dispensing of medicines and stopped doing this during the inspection.
People told us staff were good at their jobs. Staff told us and records confirmed, they received the training and support they needed to perform their roles. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People consented to their care and staff emphasised the importance of offering people choices. People told us they liked the food at the home. Care plans were updated to include a high level of detail about people’s dietary needs and preferences. People were supported to have their healthcare needs met and to access healthcare services where they needed.
The home had a friendly and homely atmosphere. People and staff had established positive, caring relationships with each other. Observations showed kind and compassionate interactions between people and staff. People were actively involved in making decisions about their care. People told us they felt that staff treated them with respect and they were given private time when they wanted it. Staff were open to supporting people to develop relationships and encouraged people to maintain links with their pasts.
Care plans were updated during the inspection to include a high level of detail about how to support people to meet their needs. Care plans were personalised and reflected individual preferences. People were supported to attend a range of activities and to be part of their local community. People knew how to make complaints and there was a robust complaints policy in place.
People and staff spoke highly of the registered manager. They told us the registered manager was open, approachable, enthusiastic and kind. Staff spoke about the importance of promoting people’s independence and skills which reflected the registered manager’s promotion of the social model of disability. The registered manager completed the required checks to ensure the health and safety of the home. Records of the checks on the quality of the service had not been maintained. We have made one recommendation about quality assurance systems.
The inspection took place on the 17 March 2015 and was unannounced. The service met all of the regulations we looked at when we last inspected in July 2013.
The service provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to four adults with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection, four people were using the service. The service had a registered manager 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were protected from harm and the service had good procedures for safeguarding people from abuse and harm. The staff knew how to report any concerns they had and could all identify the different types of abuse. People's needs were assessed and risk assessments were in place to make sure that people were kept safe.
People's medicines were managed and recorded safely. We saw that people's medicines were all recorded correctly and that any unused medicines were stored and disposed of safely in line with the service's procedure.
There was enough staff to support people effectively. The staff were all recruited using safe recruitment procedures and all criminal records, identity and employment history checks had been completed and satisfactory references obtained. Staff were supported with regular supervision and appraisals, and had all received training to make sure they had the skills required to support people well.
The registered manager and staff had good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People using the service all had capacity to make their own decisions about their care and support and nobody's freedom was restricted. All the staff we spoke to demonstrated an understanding of MCA and DoLS and worked in line with the code of practice when supporting people.
People told us the service and the staff were caring and provided them with the support they needed. We observed good caring interactions between staff and people while support was being provided. People's privacy was respected with people having keys to their own rooms, and staff always knocked and asked permission before entering their rooms.
People were involved in decisions about their care and were encouraged to give their views on how they wanted to be supported. We saw that people were able to ask for what they wanted and make changes to their care plans based on their changing needs.
People were asked for their feedback about the service and were able to tell staff or the registered manager if they were unhappy with their care. The service had a formal complaints procedure and people knew how to make a complaint.
There was an open culture that encouraged people and staff to speak to the registered manager with any ideas of concerns. We saw that people were able to express their ideas and were involved in making decisions about the service.
Regular audits were completed to make sure that the service provided high quality care and support for people. These audits included an annual survey of people using the service to get their feedback in addition to audits of care files, risk assessments and policies and procedures.
There were effective quality assurance and quality monitoring systems in place; these were used to seek the views of people using the service and to measure success in meeting the aims, objectives and statement of purpose of the home. The home undertook various audits to ensure the quality and safety of the service.
People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. People were given opportunities to express their choices and to make decisions in their daily lives. We observed that staff were aware of people's preferences and routines so they could support people in their daily lives. From our own observations we saw staff treated people using the service with dignity and respect.
People who used this service told us that they were very happy and felt that they were respected and involved in all aspects of their care. People also told us they had good access to health care professionals such as doctors, district nurses, dentists and community psychiatric nurses.
People who use the service indicated to us that they felt safe at the home. They told us they had no concerns about their care but would speak with a relative or the staff if they did