You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

We undertook our comprehensive inspection of Abbeymere on 21 June 2018. The inspection was unannounced. We previously inspected the service on 11 April 2017 and the rating after this inspection was requires improvement. At this latest inspection we rated the service as good.

Abbeymere 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.

Abbeymere accommodates a maximum of 18 older people that may have dementia, poor mental health, physical disabilities or a sensory Impairment. People live in one building that was adapted to meet the needs of people living there. There were 18 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

The provider is required to, and has a registered manager for the home. They were present throughout our inspection. 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.

People felt safe and expressed confidence in the staff and management. We saw the provider learnt from any incidents to promote people’s safety without compromising their rights. People received care with minimal delay as there was sufficient staff available to respond to their needs. People were confident their medicines were managed safely. We found the home was clean and smelt fresh. Appropriate checks on prospective staff to ensure they were safe to work at the home were completed. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff do support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service do support this practice.

People’s consent was sought by staff consistently, prior to and during the provision of personal care. Where there was a need to consider restrictions for a person’s safety their 'best interests' were considered. Staff demonstrated they were skilled and knowledgeable, this reflecting the regular training they received. People could access health care services as needed with the support of staff and their relatives. People had a choice of nutritious food and regular and varied drinks which they enjoyed. People could access healthcare services as needed. The home was small, homely and provided a comfortable environment for people to live in. The provider was however looking at improving the environment with plans for further communal space.

People received support from staff who were kind, caring and compassionate. People felt they were treated with dignity, respect and valued as individuals. People's right to independence and choice was promoted. People were supported to maintain links with their people important to them, and families felt supported by the staff at the home.

People, relatives and staff knew who the registered manager was and felt able to approach them with any matters they wished to discuss. People felt the provider and registered manager would make changes based on what they said to improve the service. We found systems for monitoring the quality of care were in place to ensure standards were maintained. The provider and registered manager understood their legal responsibilities, were open and honest about any issues that affected the service, and had a wish to further improve the service so people continued to receive good quality care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service was safe

People felt safe at the home, and the provider used learning to promote people�s safety without compromising their rights.

There was sufficient staff to ensure people received care in a timely manner.

People received their medicines in a safe way.

The home was clean and fresh.

The provider carried out appropriate checks on new staff to ensure they were safe to work at the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service was effective

People�s right to consent was consistently sought by staff and any restrictions considered people's 'best interests'.

Staff were well trained and demonstrated they were skilled and knowledgeable.

People accessed external healthcare as needed.

People had a choice of nutritious food and regular and varied drinks which they enjoyed.

The environment was small, homely and appropriate for the needs of the people living there.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service was caring

People were supported by staff who were kind, caring and compassionate. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were valued by staff.

People's independence was promoted.

People were supported to express their views and make choices

regarding their daily living.

People were supported to maintain links with their families and people important to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service was responsive

People, or their representatives were involved in their care planning.

Staff understood people�s needs, likes, dislikes and personal preferences.

People could engage in past times and activities they liked.

People could raise complaints and felt these would be listened to.

The provider used advanced planning to enhance how they responded to people's needs at the end of their life.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 July 2018

The service was well led.

The registered manager was well known to people, relatives and staff.

People found the registered manager approachable and the provider listened to people, and made changes based on what they said to improve the service.

Systems for monitoring the quality of care were in place.

The provider understood their legal responsibilities and were open and honest about how they wanted to further improve the service so people continued to receive good quality care.