Abi House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led.

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.

Staff and leaders promoted an open proactive culture to safety events. Incidents were reported and investigated which resulted in lessons learnt and supported continued improvement of practice. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff and management team. They told us they could approach them with any ideas, worries or concerns. They had confidence action would be taken.

Managers were open and transparent, and it was evident they had worked hard to continually improve the service to provide people with safe, effective and person-centred care.

There was a process in place to monitor incidents, accidents and near misses. This ensured all accidents or incidents were individually reviewed and formally analysed monthly so prompt action could be taken where required. At the time of this assessment the manager told us, although the system was working well, they were looking at further developing it to record a more detailed analysis of incidents. The service demonstrated organisational learning and continued improvement.

People benefited from the support of leaders who were visible in the service and modelled inclusive behaviours. Staff told us they were able to talk with the provider and managers when they needed to. We saw managers leading by example and saw friendly and familiar interactions between managers and staff. Managers and staff were clear about their duty of candour, to be transparent and open when things go wrong. Relatives told us they felt confident in the manager and the provider.

The manager and provider understood their responsibilities in relation to their registration with CQC.

The provider had invested in learning opportunities for the managers, and this had a direct and positive effect on the service delivery.

People and staff told us they had the freedom to say what they thought and be heard. Staff were proud of the service. Staff said they felt able to raise anything with the provider and felt they would be listened to. One staff member said, “I can speak up. The manager is very approachable.” Another said, “[Name of manager] is friendly and approachable, I can talk to them.”

The management team ensured everyone was treated fairly and were not discriminated against due to any protected characteristics. There were processes in place to support staff to speak up, such as a whistle blowing policy and information containing contact details of the local authority and CQC. Staff confirmed they had access to the information.

There was regular contact with families, who all told us they were able to raise ideas or concerns, and they were listened to and actioned.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff said they enjoyed working at Abi house. Staff said they had felt welcomed into the home and were given enough information and training to enable them to undertake their roles. One staff member told us, “The training and learning never stops, it’s very good.” Another said, “It’s a really nice team, we all get on well together.”

The service was fully staffed. The duty roster showed staff working various hours indicating flexible working, as far as is practical within a service needing to provide round the clock cover. Records showed staff received regular face to face supervisions and staff confirmed this was the case. Supervisions provided an opportunity for staff to discuss any concerns or thoughts related to career progression. Staff told us they valued the time they had to have staff meetings and one to one supervision. Staff came from diverse backgrounds, and they told us their different cultural needs were respected.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance.

Systems were robust enough to raise awareness with the provider when there were issues within the service. For example, when maintenance was needed or a risk assessment required reviewing. Audits covered a number of topics including emergency planning, fire, and data protection as well as detailed monitoring of people support needs.

The management team worked together to ensure there was oversight and effective governance at the service. There were computerised systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. This included health and safety, accidents, incidents, complaints, medication management and staff documentation.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Not everyone was able to share their experiences, but those that could told us, staff helped them to get out, have health appointments and meet family and friends.

Relatives told us their loved ones led active lives supported by staff and they were involved in the choices of activities offered. Relatives also told us that their loved ones had appropriate referrals to other health and social care professionals when required.

People received ongoing support from various external health and social care professionals who represented them. Staff and leaders understood their responsibilities to work in partnerships with external care professionals to ensure people received joined up care.

There was evidence in the support plans and daily notes the provider had liaised with various health professionals to ensure safe care and treatment for people living in the service.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Relatives told us communication and collaboration were positive and helped people have improved outcomes. For example, a relative sourced an activity for a person with staff to support their attendance and helped the relative assess if the person was benefiting from it.

The manager told us of lessons learned from carrying out audits. They said, “From the Health and Safety Audit – We learnt from previous health and safety audits that there needed to be a fire door in place at the back of the building that had better access than going through the utility room. This works is now nearly completed and will improve the health and safety of Abi House and have better access to the outdoor space.” and from the “Data audit – We have learnt that staff need to be more detailed in their note writing on Nourish and include more information for example, to include how long was the activity, how did they engage, were they prompted/supported/assisted/independent etc.” This demonstrated the provider and managers commitment to continued improvement and learning.