Abi-support Ltd

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 provider met people’s needs.

The provider was previously registered at a different address. The rating at the previous address was good.

At this assessment the rating had remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 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, however, this was not always well documented.

Some records contained detailed information about people’s backgrounds. However, care records were not updated regularly so staff did not have the relevant information to support people. For example, information about people's needs, likes and dislikes and abilities were not always included, or specific to them. Information about how to support people with their personal care was not always included.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. The manager told us they worked with multi-disciplinary professionalsand raised concerns where appropriate to health care professionals.

People we spoke with told us, “Since September a new team has started and the same carers are now visiting all the time”, and “[Person] refused to have male carers, they sorted it out straight away.”

Weekly meetings were held to discuss people and their changing needs to ensure a team approach was implemented and positive action taken to support people, however, this positive action was not always well documented.

People were provided with a copy of their care plan or had been involved in the care planning process.

People we spoke with told us, they have care plans in place and receive annual reviews.

The manager told us, how they supported people with accessible needs to access their care and support planning.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People spoke positively about the care and told us they would recommend the service to others. People were asked for their views in a variety of formats throughout the year. Some people told us, they have been asked for feedback, and most people received regular contact from the office staff to check they were happy with their care.

Complaints we reviewed were managed well. We received positive feedback from people and their relatives where concerns had been raised, people felt their complaints were dealt with promptly and efficiently.

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

People had access to external health professionals as and when needed. People and staff gave us examples of where additional support had been accessed.

Relatives told us the provider listened to them and took action to support their loved ones. We also heard, “I can phone [the service] if there are any problems, my requests are actioned promptly, we have regular carers they are hardworking and patient.”

There was an on-call service in place to support staff and people who used the service.

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.

People and relatives, we spoke with told us, “The Manager is approachable” and “I know the Manager well, the office staff are lovely, they return my call. They do their best.”

Staff gave examples of where they supported people to participate in some at home social activities and reduce the risk of isolation.

People were not always 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.

Documentation around end-of-life support and care was not always in place. People’s care records did not have evidence of conversations or support which had been offered for future planning to support people with major life changes including when they were coming to the end of their life.