You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

This inspection took place on 4 and 5 October 2017 and was unannounced.

Abbeyfield – Edward Moore House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 39 older people. The service also offers a respite care service to enable people to stay in order to give their relatives and carers a break. At the time of our inspection 35 older people were living at the service, many of whom were living with dementia. Some people had sensory impairments and some people had limited mobility.

The service has a registered manager who was available and supported us during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

At the last inspection on 6 October 2016 the service required improvement and we made two recommendations. These were about medicines management and staff supervisions. At this inspection we found that the provider had implemented our recommendations.

People were supported by staff who were trained to recognise the signs of abuse and who knew how to report concerns they had about people's safety. Checks were carried out on all staff so that that they were fit and suitable for their role.

Staffing levels had been reviewed and recruitment had started to ensure there was an additional member of staff on duty during the day in order to meet people’s needs.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines, gained people’s consent before giving a person their medicines and appropriate records were kept.

People's care plans and risk assessments contained information about their personal history and support needs that enabled staff to support them safely. Each risk assessment included clear measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow or make sure people were protected from harm. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of recurrence could be reduced.

The environment was clean and had a number of design features which benefitted people living with dementia including themed areas, clear signage and books available to look at.

People had their health and nutritional needs assessed and monitored and referrals were made to health professionals when their needs changed. They were offered a choice at mealtimes which took into consideration their dietary requirements.

New staff received an induction which included shadowing existing staff. They were provided with a regular programme of training in areas essential to their role. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood its main principles. CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager had submitted DoLS applications to ensure that people were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

Staff communicated with people in a kind manner and treated them with compassion, dignity and respect. Staff had developed positive and valued relationships with people and their family members. The service had received a number of compliments about the caring nature of the staff team.

A plan of care was developed for each person to guide staff on how to support people’s individual needs. Information had been gained about people’s likes, and what was important to them. These were regularly reviewed so that they contained the right information for staff to be able to support people. The service planned to develop a one page profile for people and staff and to match people who shared similar interests.

People were offered a range of activities which included sensory activities that took into consideration the needs of people living with dementia.

There were systems in place to monitor the qual

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise any potential abuse to keep people safe.

Potential risks to people were identified and measures were in place to minimise them.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to care for people in a safe way. Recruitment processes included checks so that only suitable staff were employed.

The service was clean and working practices were in place to minimise the spread of any infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was effective.

People’s health care needs were assessed and monitored and advice was sought from healthcare professionals when required.

People's dietary needs were met. They had access to food options that promoted their health and wellbeing.

People were supported by staff, who had been appropriately trained to understand their needs .

The needs of people living with dementia had been taken into consideration in the design of the environment.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was caring.

Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness, compassion and respect.

People's privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Staff showed concern for people’s well-being in a caring and meaningful way and responded appropriately to their needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People's care plans had been developed to include people’s life history and what was important to them.

People were encouraged to participate in meaningful activities, which were person centred and included community trips.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was well-led.

The quality of the service was monitored through regular audits were effective in highlighting areas requiring further improvement.

The management team were clear and about the vision and values of the service and led by example.

People’s and relatives views about the service were sought and acted on.