You are here

Archived: Abbeywood Outstanding

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 July 2013
Date of Publication: 26 July 2013
Inspection Report published 26 July 2013 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 3 July 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

Many of the people at Abbeywood Care Home were unable to tell us about their experiences in a meaningful way. To help us to understand the experiences people have we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool.

"SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us." The SOFI tool enabled us to spend time watching what was going on in the service and helped us to record how people spent their time, the type of support they got and whether they had positive experiences. We spent time on each of the floors observing care and found that people had positive experiences. For example people were observed to smile and speak with staff when staff spoke with them. We noted people spoke with each other about our visit and were curious as to why we were in the home.

| People who could communicate with us in a meaningful way told us staff were caring. Relatives spoken with told us their family members "were treated with dignity and respect".

People were supported in promoting their independence.

During our visited we observed that where able people moved around the home freely. Those people who required more support were observed from a safe distance by staff to ensure risks to their safety were minimised. This meant therefore where able people's independence was promoted and respected.

People's privacy and dignity was promoted and respected.

On a number of occasions during the day we observed and heard care being provided to people. Staff were seen to be respectful and mindful of the need to ensure that people's dignity was promoted and protected. Bedroom and bathroom doors were kept closed whilst personal care was being attended to. Staff were heard to speak with people in a respectful and sensitive manner. Staff spoken with demonstrated their responsibilities to ensure people were treated with respect and dignity. They talked about the need to ensure

people were given choices around all daily living activities. We heard staff offering people choices regarding their meals, choice as to the activities they liked to do and their choice of clothes. We also noted people were asked where they wanted to spend their time.

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care.

We observed that people who use the service and their relatives were provided with written information in relation to their care. Bedrooms and communal areas contained copies of the homes complaints procedure. Therefore people were aware of their rights and the procedure to make a complaint. We saw copies of the home's brochure and

statement of purpose were readily available if people or their relatives wished to see them. This meant the service supported people and their relatives to make informed decisions about their care.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

We noted the most recent quality assurance report and analysis had been posted in the main reception area of the home. We also saw a suggestion box and comment cards had been left for people, their relatives and visitors to use as they wished. One of the senior staff told us the suggestion box was checked regularly and that comments were responded to in a timely manner. One relative we spoke with told us "The new manger is really good, she responds to any concerns really quickly." This meant the appointed

manager listened to people's and relatives views and took their comments in to account in the way the service was delivered.

We saw minutes of resident and relatives meetings and noted these meetings had been held on a monthly basis. This meant people and their relatives had been encouraged to contribute to the running of the home.

We noted a number of photographs posted throughout the building. The p