Abbeyfield Loughborough

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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.

Assessments of people's needs had been carried out prior to people using the service and involved the person and, where appropriate, their relatives, to ensure the service was able to meet the person's needs and preferences. Comments from relatives included, “I feel that they really know about [relative] and they asked us for information on what [relative] likes before they went in.” And also, “When they [relative] first came in the managers both came in and talked to us all and the care plan was put together.”

Care plans were regularly reviewed to reflect any changes in people’s needs and health conditions. Care plans and assessments included information about people's histories, communication needs and how they wanted to be supported.

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's nutrition, hydration, and preferences were met. Recognised clinical assessment tools were used to assess and review people’s care and support needs, such as skin care, dietary and hydration needs. Most people and their relatives told us they enjoyed the food and menus on offer. Relative’s comments included,” [Person] does spend quite a lot of time asleep now and so they don't stick rigidly to mealtimes but they put food and drink in front of [them] whenever [they are] awake and alert and so they take every opportunity to try and get [them] to eat and drink.” And “The food looks fine and there seems to be plenty of it. There is always someone going around with drinks and apple juice.”

We observed how people were supported at lunch time in the dining and lounge areas. Where people required support from staff to eat their meals safely, we observed that support was provided appropriately and with dignity. The chef and kitchen staff were knowledgeable about people’s dietary needs and daily menus offered choice. This meant people received food choices that were safe and appropriate for them and followed national guidance.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure information about people was shared appropriately with other services when needed. Staff worked well together and completed daily ‘flash’ meetings to ensure all staff were updated on people’s care and health.

People’s records completed by staff showed when healthcare professionals had visited to discuss a person’s care so all staff could read about any updates and keep themselves informed of any changes to the person’s care.

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

Care plans provided staff with guidance about how to provide effective care and support. Health needs were monitored. For example, people who were at risk of pressure injury to their skin received regular care interventions which included regular repositioning to maximise and encourage blood circulation.

People and their relatives told us they had access to health care professionals when required. When asked what would happen if they were ill 1 person told us, “[Staff] would say, ‘We’ll get a doctor to see you straightaway’ or they would take me to hospital.” A relative said, “I do feel that they liaise well with visiting doctors and other professionals for example [person] had a fall, but [they] didn't need to go to hospital [they] hadn't really hurt [themselves], but they got [them] checked out by the doctor and then a physiotherapist came to see [them] for a visit.”

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.

The provider had robust systems and processes that monitored clinical care outcomes. For example, staff used nationally recognised tools to monitor people's health, and we saw evidence of prompt action taken when a change was identified. If people were at risk of malnutrition, they had their dietary intake and weight monitored. If people had unplanned weight loss, this was identified and investigated, and a plan was put in place to prevent further weight loss. Staff told us how the provider’s electronic system supported them in the day-to-day monitoring people’s health and wellbeing.

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

Systems were in place to ensure mental capacity assessments were completed when necessary. If people could not make decisions or consent to their care, processes were in place to ensure decisions were made in their best interests, involving all relevant persons. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act and were knowledgeable about people’s rights regarding consenting to care and treatment. 

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) referrals were made where required and these were kept under review. This reduced the risks of people being deprived unlawfully of their liberty.

People told us they chose what to do in their lives, and they were supported to make their own decisions. People’s care records guided staff to ensure they asked for people’s consent, and we observed staff asked people for their consent before providing any care and support.