Abbey Grange Care Home

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 nominated individual met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were engaged and involved in their care and their choices. Care plans reflected people’s person-centred needs and choice. The new electronic care record system included more detail which supported staff in providing person-centred care. Staff understood people’s needs and how to care for them. One told us, “People can choose what (they) want.”

Relatives told us, and we observed people were being supported with a high standard of person-centred care, in a timely manner. They told us, “They (staff) understand [persons] needs and adapt to them” and, “The home is very responsive to my [relatives] needs We really do feel it is good value for money.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives said professionals were involved in people’s care as required. One said, “They get the doctor when needed, they always ring if there is anything wrong.” Another told us, “The home is very responsive to my [relatives] needs” and, “We are very satisfied with the service [person] receives everybody is treated with respect and dignity.”

Partners mostly fedback about the improvements in the service. We saw health professionals visiting during the assessment. They told us they visited regularly to review people as required and that the staff made referrals to them. However, they also said that staff did not always inform them about any hospital admissions or deaths, and the staff were not always available to go on ward arounds. The nominated individual told us they contacted the relevent health partners to make them aware when people move in or out of the service.

People were consistently supported with choices in their care and support. Care records included information to support staff in providing care. These were being reviewed and updated regularly. Handovers were undertaken between shifts, this included updates and information to ensure staff were aware of people’s changing needs.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information and guidance was available throughout the service. This included the use of pictorial aids and prompts. A range of information about the services Abbey Grange Care Home provided was on display. This included a service user guide in the entrance to the service. Care records had information which confirmed people had been involved in their development. Information about how people communicated was recorded, this included the use of advocates where needed.

Staff were seen providing information and support to people. Staff told us they had access to information about communicating with people and they confirmed confidential information was stored securely. One said, “One person has a (medical condition), we explain everything verbally and guide them. Information is kept private; we use electronic systems which we make sure we log out of at the end of each shift.”

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff knew what to do if someone complained. One said, “Any concerns are passed onto the seniors or managers.” Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and staff in the form of surveys and questionnaires, these contained positive feedback and there was a comments and suggestion box in the entrance.

The nominated individual had introduced a system to monitor and manage complaints. A complaints log was in place to follow up and monitor them. Information about the actions taken as a result of investigations was noted, along with a recent audit of complaints that detailed the actions that had been taken

Most people and relatives told us they know how to raise concerns, but they said unanimously they had no concerns. Comments included, “If we weren’t happy, we know we can tell them but honestly, we have no concerns”, “The home is an open house there’s nothing to hide visitors can come and go when they like” and, “The staff are very approachable we can let them know if we have any concerns.” However, one person told us they didn’t know who to approach if they had a concern.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff supported people to access professionals, as they needed both in the service as well as the community. Care records, monitoring charts, advice and guidance confirmed this. People were supported to access professionals, relatives confirmed where required people were seen by relevant health professionals.

Information about how the service would support people was on display both in the communal areas and the office. Up to date policy and procedures, with links to up to date and best practice guidance was available and accessible to the staff team. The nominated individual told us all of the staff team had access to these electronically and they were able to check that staff had accessed the policy and confirmed they had read them.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Professionals were more positive about the service since our last assessment. One told us, “They treat people well and are kind to the residents (people).” Staff listened to people and people told us they were treated equally with kindness and, according to their need. One said, “People are treated fairly and not discriminated against.” We saw staff interacting positively with all people encouraging and engaging them in activities and care of their choosing.

Electronic records had information that was reviewed regularly by the staff team. They evidenced that people and relatives had been involved in planning their care and support.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Relatives told us their family members had been supported to make important decisions about their end of life wishes. One told us, “The end of life care support has been amazing nothing is too much trouble [person] could not have a better service especially this time of their life.”

End of life care plans were in place with some choices recorded. The nominated individual told us these would be adapted as people’s needs change. We saw one person had just in case medicines available in the service if they were required in the future.

Staff had undertaken relevant training to provide support to people as they neared the end of their life. One told us, “I am the end-of-life champion. I would be involved in advanced care plans and speaking to nurses. I have done training on this.” Up to date policy, and guidance was in place to support staff.