Abbey Care 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. This is the first assessment for this service under the new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There was a robust preadmission process in place which was effectively implemented to ensure people’s needs were accurately assessed prior to moving into the service. Information was made available to staff before the person was admitted supporting a safe transition. Relatives consistently told us people’s needs were regularly reviewed. People and relatives had the opportunity to be involved in this.

Care records accurately reflected people’s health, wellbeing and communication needs. Staff communicated effectively with people, in a way that suited their individual needs and preferences.

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.

Nationally recognised assessment tools were in place to support accurate assessment of people’s needs and risks. The registered manager attended training and local forums to keep up to date with good practice standards.

People had enough to eat and drink. Their individual dietary needs were met, and people gave positive feedback about the food. One person told us, “The puddings are scrummy.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked well together as a team and with external professionals to meet people’s health needs. One professional told us staff were very good at seeking their input and following the advice given. They told us, “I feel we work together to meet people's needs, whatever I advise they do, and they ask questions if they're not sure.”

People’s information was accurate and available for sharing with professionals and other services when required.

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 were supported to attend external health appointments when needed. Some routine health checks were also facilitated at the service. For example, an optician attended to check people’s eyes. Professional advice was incorporated into care plans to support people’s health and wellbeing needs.

Where people’s needs changed training was provided for staff to ensure they had the correct knowledge and skills to support the person safely and effectively. People’s choice and preferences were consistently respected by staff when providing care.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems and processes were effectively implemented to ensure people’s health was effectively monitored. The registered manager maintained good oversight of people’s health needs. Processes in place supported effective information sharing and communication amongst the team and with external professionals and services. This meant people’s health concerns were addressed in a timely manner supporting positive outcomes. One relative told us, “The home will seek assistance from external professionals quickly rather than wait and see how the resident goes.”

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

The service was working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Best interest processes were followed where people lacked capacity to make decisions and the registered manager maintained effective oversight of this. Staff supported people in a person-centred way and sought consent before providing support. One person told us, “The carers always ask me if it’s ok for them to help me with anything. They’re so polite.”