Abbott House - Oundle

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.

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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care and support was planned in a way that reflected their individual preferences. Care plans contained detailed person-centred information, including people's life histories, cultural and religious needs, and their likes and dislikes. This helped staff to understand what was important to people and supported meaningful conversation. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's backgrounds, routines and personal needs and were able to describe how they tailored care to meet these. Improvement was required in ensuring that people’s care was delivered as planned and better monitored for change to ensure care panning remained person-centred.

We received mixed feedback regarding activities with some people feeling there was plenty to do and others feeling activities were limited. A person told us, “[Activities coordinator] is wonderful, fantastic, we miss them when they are not here. It’s quiet at weekends - it’s TV or nothing.” Staff rota's evidenced that mostly 1 day of weekend activity staff cover was provided on a fortnightly basis, on those weeks a week day of activity staff cover was omitted to accommodate. Other people told us, “We have a list provided but it’s a pretty poor choice,” and, “They have all sorts of things on. We all meet up, that’s the nice thing.” Other people told us, “We have a list provided but it’s a pretty poor choice,” and, “They have all sorts of things on. We all meet up, that’s the nice thing.”

One person told us of their love of dogs and how animals were regular visitors to the service, they told us the dog would go and sit with them for company and described the positive impact this had on them.

We observed and records evidenced that the list was provided for core activities and there was more activities than advertised, with the activity coordinator adapting some activities on the day and improvising to meet people’s preferences. We highlighted this to the provider so this could be better communicated.

Some improvement was required to dementia friendly activities and ensuring people had access to some suitable activities to entertain themselves. Some activities were added during the assessment, however, this would need to be continued and embedded.

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.

The provider demonstrated continuity of care through a consistent staff team including regular agency staff. There had been a change in management, however, the service had been supported by a long standing deputy and area manager who had provided stability through change and demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs. People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed them, and the provider ensured appropriate involvement of healthcare professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider understood the accessible information standard. Information could be made available in other formats where required such as large print or other languages. During the assessment the provider made some improvements to dementia friendly signage to support people with orientation to their rooms.

The provider had a system for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care.

There were regular relative and resident meetings and there was evidence of relatives and people involved in and leading their care. For example, one person’s relatives were contacted about a particular activity that the provider thought may be beneficial to the person’s wellbeing and how they could work together to make that happen.

A relative told us, “They (the provider) communicate well and contact me if any problem at all. I’ve been to Relatives meetings - they listen and take things on board. We said we weren’t sure who the team leaders were, so now it’s shown on a sign.”

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure, where people had made complaints, the provider had responded in line with their policy and procedure. A person told us that they had made a complaint which had been listened to and actioned. A relative told us how a complaint had been investigated and identified learning resulting in a change of care delivery that has worked well.

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

People had access to health care appointments and regular opticians, chiropody and hairdressers’ appointments. The GP service completed weekly visits which people and their families appreciated. A relative said, “The regular GP and nurse service is fantastic. They pick things up early on and do a blood test or whatever, while here.” A person told us there was no obligation to use healthcare professionals within the home, they told us they opted out of the homes optician service and used the local one in Oundle instead.

The provider understood that some people were more likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. People had equal access to health care, with the provider advocating for people that could not do this for themselves to ensure they could access services when they needed to.

We observed a positive approach to risk taking to ensure people did not miss out on experiences. For example, outside space was adapted for wheelchair use and we saw people coming and going at their leisure. An evening event involving alcohol for some was adapted for those that could not consume alcohol for medical reasons to ensure they had the same pleasant experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider did not offer a specialist end of life service, however, they supported people to stay in the home for end of life care if they wished to. Not all staff had received training in end of life care but we saw they were delivering care for a person as per their wishes. The person told us that staff were kind and they wanted to stay in the home. They told us of something they enjoyed in their room and staff had ensured this was in place, however, this had not been recorded in the end of life care plan to ensure any agency staff deployed would have this information. We fed this back to the provider who ensured it was included going forward. Improvements were needed to how the person was supported to maintain their skin integrity, however, their was no evidence this had impacted on the person.

DNACPR (Do not attempt cardio pulmonary resuscitation) records were in place where needed and staff had a quick access to this information.