You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 12 March 2018

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 3 May 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 14 and 15 December 2016. A breach of the legal requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 was found. The provider sent us an action plan setting out how they would address the breach.

We carried out a focused inspection of this service on 3 May 2017 which was unannounced. We checked that they had followed their action plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirement. This report only covers our findings in relation to ‘Safe’. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Abbey House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

A registered manager was in post. 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 received their medicines at the right times, as prescribed. The provider had changed to a new electronic medicine administration and management system that they had assessed to be safer. The registered manager and senior staff had been trained and their competency had been assessed. We found medicines were stored, administered and managed safely. Staff had clear information and guidance to follow to ensure people’s health needs were met. The electronic administration systems enabled the registered manager to monitor stock levels, ensure people received their medicines at the right time and alerted them when staff attempted to administer medicines incorrectly. Further action was needed to demonstrate the improvements made were sustained.

We found improvements had been made to the premises. All areas of the service were kept clean and hygienic. Staff followed infection control and prevention procedures to maintain people’s health and safety. The laundry room was clean and the equipment was working which helped to ensure people had clean clothes to wear.

People told us that there were enough staff to meet their needs and respond in good time. Staff told us that they had clarity in their roles and responsibilities. The management and deployment of staff had improved and effective monitoring helped to ensure people needs were met.

Inspection carried out on 14 December 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 14 December 2016 and was unannounced. We returned on 15 December 2016 announced to complete the inspection.

Abbey House is a care home that provides residential care without nursing for up to 37 people. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people in residence. The service is located within a residential area, which provides accommodation over two floors.

This was our first inspection of the service since they registered with us on 2 February 2015.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

We found people’s health, safety and wellbeing was put at risk because the poor cleanliness, faulty laundry equipment and delays in repairs had increased the infection control risks. People’s medicines were not always stored and administered in a safe way. Although actions were taken on the day it showed the systems were not robust, effective or timely to meet people’s needs safely.

We found the provider’s quality assurance system to monitor and assess the quality of the service was not effectively used to monitor or identify shortfalls that we found during this inspection and to drive improvements. People’s views and opinions of their relatives and staff were sought in a number of ways. However, it was difficult to monitor the progress and effectiveness of the improvements.

People’s care needs had been assessed and measures to manage risks were put in place. People’s needs were met although a delay in the response time. We found people’s needs were not always monitored and their needs were not always re-assessed when changes had been identified. People were not involved in a meaningful way in the review of their care. Where changes had been identified people’s care plans were not always amended to reflect those needs.

People told us that staff were not always able to respond in good time to meet their needs. Some people had regular visitors and took part social events organised by the staff. However, some people were at risk of social isolation as staff were not able to spend meaningful time with people individually.

We found people had regularly raised concerns about some aspects of the service with little or no improvement made. We also found the similar issues which related to the laundry and new issues regarding staff’s poor and unsafe practices. The registered manager was responsive and addressed the issues when raised with them.

People told us they felt safe with the care staff. The registered manager and staff were trained in safeguarding adults, understood their responsibility and were aware of the procedures to follow if they suspected that someone was at risk of harm.

People’s safety was promoted through the employment of staff. The registered manager ensure there were enough numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and used regular agency staff whilst staff disciplinary and recruitment was ongoing.

People’s needs were assessed and their safety was managed in the main. Staff were trained to support people and used equipment to enable people to move around safely. Staff’s ongoing support was being provided in the main through individual and group meetings. However, staff relied on the verbal information communicated through the handover meetings to ensure people’s needs were met at the care plans were not always up to date.

People spoke positively about the meal choices, which met their dietary and cultural needs. People had access to health support and referrals were made to relevant health care professionals where there were concerns about people’s health.

The registered manager and staff were clear about their responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act 2