You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 August 2018

The inspection took place on 17 and 18 July 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. This meant that the provider and staff did not know we were coming.

Abbotsbury is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Abbotsbury accommodates 21 people in one adapted building. The detached accommodation is a large three storey building with 21 single bedrooms. Shared living areas include three lounges and a dining room. Measures are in place to support access to the building for people who are wheelchair users or who have limited mobility. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post who also registered manager for another home owned by the registered provider. ‘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.’ Day to day running of the home was the responsibility of the Home Manager.

Everyone who lived in the home said they felt safe. There were robust measures in place to ensure people were safe. Risk assessments were in place for areas such as pressure care, safe environment, falls and mobility, and nutrition and hydration.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs. Staff rotas showed a consistent number of staff were on duty each day. People told us call bells were answered within a reasonable time.

Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. We found that staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to support people effectively and safely. Staff were supported by the manager through regular supervisions, annual appraisal and regular training. Staff had attended training in subjects such as first aid, fire safety, food safety, safeguarding and medication. New staff were required to complete an induction. Staff meetings were held regularly.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had been trained to administer medicines to ensure errors were kept to a minimum.

The home was very clean and there were no odours. The home was well maintained and in good decorative order. Regular checks and tests, such as gas, electricity, water safety, fire drills, fire alarm tests and external checks of firefighting equipment, were completed to maintain safety in the home.

People's needs were assessed and reviewed regularly to reflect their current health and support needs. People were supported to maintain healthy lives; records showed that people were supported to attend medical appointments.

Where possible staff enabled people to make their own decisions and we observed staff obtaining verbal consent from people. Staff understood and complied with The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where people lacked capacity to consent we saw that mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were recorded.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet and meet their dietary requirements. Drinks were offered at various times throughout the day to ensure people's hydration needs were met. Staff understood people's individual nutrition and hydration needs and we saw that meals were provided accordingly.

Everyone living in the home was very complementary about the attitude of the staff and the way they were treated. We observed staff speaking kindly to people; they were very patient with people and approached people with a smile. Staff seemed to know people well and their likes and dislikes. Staff understood people's different communi

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 August 2018

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor any risks to people's safety.

Staffing numbers were satisfactorily maintained to support people. Staff had been appropriately checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Medicines were administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff said they were supported through induction, appraisal and the service's training programme.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. When people were unable to consent, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed.

People's dietary needs were managed with reference to individual preferences and choice.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 August 2018

The service was caring.

People said staff were caring and friendly.

People told us their privacy was respected and staff were careful to ensure people's dignity was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were completed and were being reviewed when needed so people's care could be monitored.

People's preferences were recorded in respect of personal care routines, getting up and going to bed and likes and dislikes for food and drinks.

A process for managing complaints was in place and people we spoke with and relatives knew how to complain. No complaints had been made since the last inspection.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 August 2018

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager. There was a clear management structure with lines of accountability and staff responsibility which helped promote good service development.

There were a series of on-going audits and checks to ensure standards were being monitored effectively.

There was a system in place to get feedback from people so that the service could be developed with respect to their needs and wishes.

The Care Quality Commission had been notified of any reportable incidents.