Abode

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 service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery.

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

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

During observations at Abode, we witnessed person centred care was not always being provided. People were not always supported to use appropriate mobility aids. We witnessed a staff member making reference to how they had not used correct equipment to support someone in a wheelchair and said that they were expecting a complaint as a district nurse had witnessed this. Records were not always as person centred as they could have been, for example, daily notes did not provide any details beyond the task undertaken. We found care records did not identify what time people would usually like to wake up. Various repositioning charts suggested a number of people were getting up at 6 a.m. Though on speaking to people they said they were able to choose when they get up. Peoples personal care records did not always detail how often they may like to shower, bathe or shave. One person records did not detail their interest or passion to sing. Staff were not always confident around what person centred care means, one staff member was not sure, whilst another told us, "It depends, it is more, if it is that resident needs more time because of their illness, we watch them and document it."

Throughout the inspection staff and management made reference to various organisations they made referrals to for support when needed. We found examples where referrals were made to ensure people received the right support and treatment.

One relative told us they were supported by the home in relation to funding. They told us, ‘The home have been amazing at responding to a difficult situation, funding has been difficult, and they have helped ease the problem even to the extent of requesting an incontinence assessment to cover the cost of pads.”

People could access information and could express their views in numerous ways including at resident meetings, through surveys and by completing complaint forms. Staff spoke about how they promote people’s privacy, though we found peoples records were not always securely stored. The registered manager spoke confidently about how they could make information accessible for people. They told us, “We can use picture cards, we would use braille if needed but it isn't at the moment. We do use picture cards, we prompt verbally.” People’s information was protected using passwords on electronic devices. The managers office had a locked door though this was not always closed when the office was vacant.

People could provide feedback. One relative said about the registered manager, “The home respect us as a family, we can ring anytime, nothing is too much trouble.” Staff told us they generally felt able to escalate any concerns to management to investigate. People and their relatives were able to raise concerns or feedback through various channels including at meetings and through a complaints process. We reviewed a complaints log and this had no complaints recorded. Some surveys had been completed by people and their responses were mostly positive. Policies were in place to support people sharing feedback, including a complaints policy.

The service may initially be difficult for some people to access due to a step and uneven ground on the front grounds which required some maintenance. When inside, the corridors are wide making it suitable for wheelchair users and the service has use of a lift to support access to both floors. Some of the floors internally were uneven which could pose a falls risk for some people with mobility issues. The provider told us they were making improvements to the flooring following our inspection. The service had equipment in place to support accessibility in the home.

People could access care and support when needed. Staff generally felt that people received the care they needed, though our findings (as detailed throughout this report) did not always align with this.

Professional feedback was not always positive. Multiple professionals told us they did not feel the service works cohesively with them and other services to meet the care and support needs of people. People and their families felt they received the care they needed, one person said, “Staff always check on me, they give me plenty of support and help me to the toilet in my wheelchair.” Staff told us they had no concerns about the care the service provide, though our findings (as detailed throughout this report) did not always align with this. Ad-hoc meetings for/with residents and their relatives were taking place, which kept people up to date with any changes and allowed them to discuss any concerns.

People and their relatives who we spoke to did not specifically provide any information relating to this, but they suggested throughout our conversations that the management was approachable. The registered manager told us how they support families and residents when someone passes away, they told us, "We keep contact with the family, we try to attend funerals where possible. We do give residents the choice to attend funerals, but no one has wanted to. I don’t like to pressure relatives to empty their loved one’s belongings." We saw evidence that people had a DNACPR (Do not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) in place where it was their wish. We found some people had end of life care plans in place, where it was their wish to discuss this.