Abbeyfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture based on openness, inclusion and creating a homely environment.

Staff described the service as a safe, welcoming place and leaders promoted a positive atmosphere. One staff member said, “I would describe Abbeyfield as my second home and family, I really enjoy working there and think we offer a safe, homely environment to our residents.”

Feedback from professionals and community partners confirmed the culture was friendly and welcoming. One community partner told us, “There is always such a lovely atmosphere - we are warmly welcomed by both the staff and people.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the service and modelled the values of the organisation.

Managers were visible, approachable and worked closely with health and social care professionals to maintain good standards. A professional said, “I find it to be very well led and both the registered manager and deputy manager are friendly, approachable and knowledgeable and during care home manager meetings here at the GP surgery, they always highlight and ask appropriate questions and raise issues to ensure they are practicing to the gold standard required.”

Staff told us they felt supported and could access extra support from the wider organisation when needed. One staff member said, “I feel supported by management and my colleagues and since the merger, I feel that extra support is available if I need it.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people and staff felt able to raise concerns and be listened to.

Staff knew how to speak up and raise concerns when needed. Staff told us they had no unresolved concerns about practice and felt confident that action would be taken if issues were raised.

The provider valued diversity in the workforce and took steps to support staff with different beliefs and needs.

Staff had access to a benefits and wellbeing scheme and regular supervision and meetings, which helped promote a fair and supportive working environment.

Information was shared about events such as Ramadan and Lent so staff could better understand and support colleagues and people using the service.

The provider had clear roles, responsibilities and governance systems to oversee quality and safety.

Since our previous inspection, the registered provider for the home had changed. Staff told us the merger had been positive, with increased support and shared practice.

Managers used a mix of electronic and paper systems, audits and action plans to monitor incidents, care plans, staffing and the environment, although using multiple systems sometimes made oversight more difficult.

The provider carried out visits to add another layer of oversight to support good quality care. We discussed developing a proforma for these visits to help ensure consistency

Health and social care professionals and community spoke positively about the management of the home. One professional told us, “Any areas where actions are required, I have always found these are completed in a timely manner.”

The provider clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate with others and be part of the local community.

Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals, local churches, schools and community groups, and people benefited from these strong links. A local community leader said, “I regard it as a well-managed and friendly environment where residents seem happy and made to feel that life is very much worth living in their later years.”

Staff supported people, including veterans, to attend community events, and partners described feeling like an “extension” of the team because of the positive, joint working.

The provider was committed to continuous learning and improvement. Lessons learned were monitored, analysed and shared with staff through team meetings, “flash” meetings and individual supervisions, helping everyone to reflect and grow in their practice.

Staff and managers also took part in local care home managers’ meetings organised by the GP surgery’s frailty team. These meetings provided valuable opportunities to discuss themes such as falls, share learning with other care homes and work collaboratively with health professionals to improve people’s safety and wellbeing.

Professionals who worked with the service spoke positively about this open approach. One told us, “They are open and transparent, they’re not afraid to say when they need more support.”