Abode

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has stayed the same.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 did not always respect people’s privacy and dignity. We saw staff treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion, however people's dignity and privacy were not always consistently promoted. We found not all toilets had privacy locks and observed people's catheter bags on display, which did not fully respect their privacy and dignity. We also found communal toiletries were in use, which did not support people's individuality or choice and increased the risk that personal care products were not clearly allocated to individuals. In addition, one relative told us, “I am not always happy with her appearance sometimes and that's because her clothes are not her own.”

People and relatives spoke positively about the kindness and compassion shown by staff. One person said, “The staff are lovely and very caring.” A relative told us, “The staff are lovely with my mum, although sometimes under a little pressure. She is treated well by the staff. Mum always looks clean and fairly well dressed.”

People were observed to be treated by staff in a kind and caring manner. Staff spoke respectfully with people and were seen knocking on bedroom doors before entering, helping to maintain people's privacy.

While staff demonstrated kindness and compassion in their day-to-day interactions, the shortfalls identified meant people's dignity, privacy and individuality were not consistently upheld.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People's feedback about choice was mixed. Some people told us they could choose when to get up and go to bed, while others said they were not always offered choices about food or activities.

Staff told us they knew people well, and we observed positive interactions that reflected this. People's bedrooms were personalised with photographs and belongings important to them, and care records included information about some people's communication needs.

However, the inconsistent feedback about choice showed people's preferences were not always reflected in the care and support they received. Improvements were needed to ensure people were consistently supported to make decisions about their daily lives.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Independence was promoted in some areas of daily living, and choice was observed at mealtimes, with individuals able to decide where they wished to eat their lunch. However, opportunities for people to exercise choice and control were not consistently embedded throughout the service.

Feedback highlighted limited access to meaningful activities and stimulation. Comments included, “I would like more fun things to do. Watching TV is ok but boring sometimes.” And “There are sometimes activities, but we usually just come to the lounge and sit.” A relative commented, “There is not much stimulation on a daily basis. Just a TV in the lounge is not the answer.”

Activity records lacked detail and frequently recorded participation for large groups without identifying individuals or demonstrating how activities reflected personal interests and preferences. This made it difficult to assess if people were participating in activities.

Choice around daily routines was also restricted. Some individuals expressed a wish to choose what time they got up, including having an occasional lie-in, but felt this was difficult due to staffing pressures. Meal options were also described as limited. A staff member stated, “We do not always have time to do activities; to do that we would need more staff.”

Independence was promoted in some areas of daily living, and choice was observed at mealtimes, with individuals able to decide where they wished to eat their lunch.

While some aspects of independence and choice were supported, opportunities for meaningful engagement and control over daily life were not consistently promoted.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded promptly to requests for support and showed an understanding of people’s needs. Call bells were answered in a timely manner. Care records demonstrated most changes in people's health and wellbeing were identified and acted upon appropriately, with referrals made to healthcare professionals when concerns arose.

Appropriate action was taken to respond to incidents and accidents. Staff were knowledgeable about escalation procedures and understood when to seek support from external healthcare services.

Overall, people's immediate needs were recognised and responded to promptly, ensuring they received safe and effective support

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider promoted staff wellbeing and supported staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff received regular supervision and felt able to approach the management team with concerns or for additional support. One staff member said, “I receive any help needed from the management team.”

Staff confirmed they could request additional training to support their professional development. Positive feedback was received about management support and opportunities for learning.

Views on staffing levels were mixed. Some staff felt staffing had improved following the employment of a chef and cleaner, reducing pressure on care staff. However, other staff felt additional care staff were still needed to consistently meet people's needs and provide more activities.

Overall, staff felt supported by management, had access to supervision and training, and were enabled to raise concerns.