Abbey Village

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 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Despite people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs being discussed, the provider did not always make sure people’s care was effective.

Care plans did not always contain sufficient information to ensure people consistently received effective care and treatment. People’s needs were assessed and the information documented was specific to them but some plans lacked detail about individuals’ care needs.

We found examples where essential guidance was missing. For instance, a person living with diabetes had a care plan instructing staff to monitor for signs of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia, yet the symptoms of these conditions were not documented. This meant staff did not have clear information to support them in identifying and responding to potential risks in a timely and consistent way.

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.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to monitor people’s health needs and risks effectively. This included nutritional assessments to identify those at risk of malnutrition.

People’s dietary requirements, including any modified textures, were clearly documented, and the kitchen team were aware of each person’s individual needs. Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink, helping to reduce the risk of malnutrition and dehydration.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Professionals worked effectively with the service, and people and their relatives told us they received support from external healthcare teams. One relative said, “The manager called in professionals when required. She had called in a [specialist] nurse to help them settle. They are changing their medication to see if this helps. I am happy they are doing this.” One person told us they had access to healthcare support, saying, “I am registered with the doctor here. I think I have seen him once. The district nurse came in 2 weeks ago and supports people.”

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.

People had access to a varied programme of meaningful activities, and staff supported these in a way that promoted engagement and enjoyment. A weekly timetable included activities such as exercise to music sessions, which people participated in positively during our visit.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of identifying early signs of health deterioration. For example, they were able to recognise indicators of urinary tract infections and pressure ulcers and were clear about their responsibilities in reporting any concerns to senior staff or external health professionals. Staff had also completed training relating to specific health conditions, including pressure area care, to ensure they could provide safe and responsive support.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent.

People’s health care needs were not always effectively monitored. This created a risk that changes in health would not be recognised or escalated appropriately.

We found 1 person required daily skin checks, but this was not clearly written in their daily notes. As a result, the management team and external professionals would not have the information needed to assess the person’s needs or provide timely guidance. We raised this with the management team during the inspection, and they told us they would review and address the issue.

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

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and respected people’s rights when supporting them with decisions about their care. We observed staff seeking consent before providing support and responding to people in a considerate and respectful manner, which people reacted positively to.

The provider had assessed people’s capacity to make specific decisions and recorded these assessments appropriately. Where individuals lacked capacity, documentation showed how staff made decisions in the person’s best interests and followed the required processes.