You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

Abbey House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Abbey House is registered to accommodate up to 37 older people. At the time of our inspection, there were 35 people living in the home.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 14 and 15 December 2016, the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. The provider was asked to complete an action plan to tell us what they would do to meet legal requirement for the breach in Safe care and treatment.

We carried out a focused inspection on 3 May 2017 which was unannounced to review the actions taken by the provider to meet the legal requirement. We found they had followed their action plan and met the legal requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection and our focused inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Abbey House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This is the second comprehensive inspection of the service. The inspection took place on the 12 and 13 March 2018 and was unannounced. We found that the provider had maintained the improvements made to the quality of service. The overall rating of Abbey House has improved to Good.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Improved system in place to monitor medicines the stored and medicine records ensured discrepancies found were promptly addressed.

We found the provider’s governance system was used effectively. Regular audits and checks were carried out and action taken when shortfalls were identified. People had a range of methods to express their views about the service. The registered manager used the results of audits and feedback to drive improvement to the service. Staff training incorporated best practices and they worked with health and social care professionals to enhance the quality of care and support people received.

The registered manager was aware of their legal responsibilities and provided leadership and supported staff and people who used the service. They together with the staff team were committed to providing quality care and welcome ideas that would improve the service and enhance people’s quality of life.

People were supported to stay safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding and other relevant safety procedures to ensure people were safe and protected from avoidable harm and abuse. Risk assessments were completed; safety measures were put in place and were monitored and reviewed regularly. The design and homely environment ensured people’s safety and privacy.

People’s nutritional and cultural dietary needs were met and they had access to a range of specialist health care support that ensured their ongoing health needs were met.

Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient numbers of staff available to support people. Staff continued to be supported; received training and supervision to provide care effectively.

People continued to be involved and made decisions about all aspects of their care and were encouraged to take positive risks. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had developed positive trusting relationships with the staff team. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and independence was promoted. People continued to receive good care and support that was responsive to their individual needs.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service improved to good.

Systems to assess and manage risks associated with people�s needs were followed by staff and reviewed regularly. People were supported with their medicines safely. Medicines were stored secured and systems were in place to ensure discrepancies were identified and addressed.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were trained in safeguarding; safety procedures and staff consistently followed the infection control procedure.

Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people when they needed it. Lessons were learnt and improvements made when things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remained effective.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remained caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remained responsive.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service improved to good.

The provider�s governance system in place was used effectively to assess and monitor the quality of service and any shortfalls identified were addressed promptly. People and staff�s views about the service were sought and used to drive improvements.

The registered manager continued to provide clear leadership. They and the staff team worked in partnership with other agencies. Policies, procedures and systems were in place and accessible to staff to ensure people received quality care.