Abode

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. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not consistently receive good outcomes.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care records were detailed but not always as person centred as the could be, as covered in this report, which meant we could not always be confident how people’s needs were being assessed/reviewed/monitored.

People had assessments in place. People and their relatives felt they had been involved in developing their/their loved one’s care plan. One relative said, “I was fully involved in my father’s care plan. I helped in planning his needs.” Staff told us that the registered manager and senior carer staff create peoples care plans. Staff told us they knew people well. One staff member said, "I think I know them well enough."

People’s dietary requirements were not always appropriately recorded and followed, one person had an egg allergy or intolerance but records around this were not clear. This person was also vegan and we found records around what food options were being given/offered were not always clear. Following our inspection the provider was working to bring in alternative menu options for this person. In the kitchen we found food that had passed it expiry date and bottles of sauces in the fridge that had been opened and not dated, meaning we could also not be confident these sauces were within date. On day one these sauces were disposed of but we found a repeated issue with this on day 3.

Records relating to some aspects of care were not as clear or detailed as they should have been. For example, repositioning charts did not accurately detail positional changes or the exact time of repositioning.

We found example of necessary referrals should anyone need clinical support. People said they received enough to eat. One person said, “I have plenty to eat and drink when I want.”

Health professionals did not always feel they received a good handover of information. One professional told us, “I think it is hit and miss and bitty, it can be hard to find staff. You really can chase your tail. I think they are a bit lapse a daisy.” We saw evidence of the registered manager working with other services to try and make necessary improvements, though some professional relationships appeared fractured.

Care passports were in place, which held relevant information for each person. These are documents that are sent with a person if they need prolong external support, for example, if a person was sent to hospital. These documents help to ensure the hospital was aware of (and could meet) people's needs on admission. We saw evidence of handover records. People felt they got the support they needed. People told us that staff always take notice if they are feeling unwell, they will contact the GP and the district nurse is always popping in. Staff spoke about how they are told when people’s needs change including at handover.

People had access to healthcare support when they needed it. Staff spoke about how they monitor/record people’s health.

People’s care plans were reviewed, though this did not always effectively identify the issues we found in peoples care plans. People were being monitored for pressure care where needed, with the support of healthcare professionals. This was an area of concern which was fedback by professionals. Appropriate assessment tools for skin and nutrition were used to monitor people’s health and wellbeing. The manager told us how they review and monitor people’s care. People and their relatives were happy with their quality of life, one relative said, “My [relative] has the best quality of life.” While the people we spoke with expressed they were happy with their care, our assessment found elements of the care did not meet the expected standards.

Although we didn’t specifically ask people about consent, we did see some examples where care was being provided by staff who were interacting with people offering support and re assurance. Staff understanding of consent was mixed, one staff member spoke about asking for people’s consent. Consent forms were in place for various aspects of people’s daily life.