Abbey Village

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person cantered care. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment decisions, and partnership working with people was inconsistent.

Some care plan information was inaccurate or out of date, which meant staff did not always have reliable guidance to support people safely and effectively. Although the plans were designed to be person centred‑centred and included clear instructions, inconsistencies meant we could not be assured they reflected people’s current needs. We raised these concerns with the provider. They told us the care plans had been recently reviewed and agreed to check and correct any inaccuracies.

People were not consistently involved in developing or reviewing care plans. People told us, “No, I haven’t seen 1,” and “I don’t know if I have 1, I haven’t had any review.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People were supported by a consistent staff team, which helped maintain continuity of care. Rotas showed agency staff were not used regularly. When they were required, the provider ensured the same individuals were used to try to further promote consistent support.

Staff had access to training relevant to people’s specific needs, including dementia and oxygen therapy. This helped ensure they had the skills required to provide safe and appropriate care. Staff told us they felt able to seek guidance when needed, saying, “If I am unsure on anything I can just ask for support.”

The provider did not always give people information in formats tailored to their individual needs. The Accessible Information Standard was not fully embedded, meaning people were not consistently supported with information that matched their communication requirements, even though these needs were recorded in care plans.

Some accessible information was available. For example, the activities board used pictures, colours and larger fonts to help people understand what was on offer. However, this approach was not applied across the home. The menu was displayed in a small font on a corridor wall, making it hard to see and easy to overlook. There were also no easy‑read materials, symbols or pictures in communal areas or on bedroom doors to help people navigate the home or recognise key locations.

We raised these concerns with the provider. They told us they would make changes to improve accessibility. They also shared plans to rename areas of the home using flower themes chosen by people, and to decorate and signpost these areas accordingly.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives had opportunities to share their views about the care provided, helping the service gather feedback and address concerns. Regular residents’ and relatives’ meetings were held, where updates about the provider were shared and people were able to comment or raise issues. The provider also conducted surveys for people to provide feedback.

People told us they felt able to approach staff informally if they had any concerns. One person said, “I have not made a complaint, I have spoken to [staff name]. They are nice and listen. They are helping to sort things out.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The building was accessible to people using wheelchairs or with limited mobility. Ramps with a gradual gradient were in place throughout the building. The garden area was accessible for all, with raised beds allowing people with limited mobility to look at the plants or take part in gardening activities.

People were supported to have access to health and social care professionals and services as and when required. We observed regular nursing visits to support people with their health conditions.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training which meant they had the skills to ensure that people received equitable care regardless of their background. The provider also had an appropriate equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place which complied with legal requirements.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including end‑of‑life care, so they had time to make informed decisions about their future. Those who wished to discuss their preferences had these recorded in individual care plans. Not everyone had a plan in place, but this reflected people’s personal choice.

The provider had supported people at the end of their life, and staff had received appropriate training. Staff described a clear understanding of their role in delivering compassionate end‑of‑life care, telling us, “We support people to ensure they have access to district nurses and extra medication, and we make them as comfortable as possible and be there for them and the family.”