You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

Abbeygate 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.

Abbeygate accommodates up to 20 older people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection 18 people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Our last inspection was in December 2017 and the service was rated Requires Improvement. We identified one breach of regulations as audits had not effectively identified shortfalls and actions to rectify these. The provider submitted an action plan telling us the improvements they would make. At this inspection we identified that all regulations had been met and the service was rated Good.

People told us they were happy at Abbeygate. They said they were well-cared for by kind and competent staff. The service had a very homely feel and people were encouraged to personalise their bedrooms. Staff were attentive and knew people well. There was a lot of shared laughter between people and staff. People and relatives were very positive about the service.

There was a relaxed, informal atmosphere around the home. There were pictures on the walls of people engaging in activities and people had been involved in decorating the home for the festive season. People regularly accessed the community.

People were happy with the food and said they could choose what they ate. The staff supported people to take part in a range of activities; people told us they could choose to participate. There were regular trips out and people were involved in deciding where to go.

People received support with their health needs. The staff had good relationships with visiting health professionals. Professionals we spoke with were positive about the staff and the service and the management of people’s health needs.

People were kept safe as the provider had identified any environmental risks and taken action to reduce these. People’s medicines were managed safely; however, we have made a recommendation about the timing of some medicines.

Staff had carried out assessments to determine individual needs and had developed care plans to meet these. When needs changed staff updated people’s care plans.

The home was well-managed. The registered manager operated an effective governance system to identify and rectify any shortfalls in the service. People, their relatives and staff were able to comment on and be involved in the running of the service. There was an effective complaints system in place, however, the people we spoke with said there was nothing to complain about.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was safe.

Medicines were obtained, stored and disposed of safely. However antibiotics were not always given at regularly spaced intervals; we have made a recommendation about this.

People felt safe at the service.

Risks to people were managed effectively.

There were sufficient staff, safely recruited.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were trained and competent.

People had enough to eat and drink; they were positive about the food.

The staff team worked effectively with healthcare providers.

Staff understood and worked in accordance with, the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Caring

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were very positive about staff attitudes and behaviour.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

People were supported to maintain their independence.

Staff respected people�s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care.

People were supported to engage in a variety of activities.

There was an effective complaints system in place.

People were encouraged to make their own choices about how they spent their time.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was well-led.

There was an open, responsive culture in the service.

People felt confident in how the service operated.

There was an effective governance system and staff morale was good.

People, relatives and staff were able to give input into the running of the service.