You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 September 2018

This unannounced inspection of Abbegale Lodge took place on 16 August 2018.

Abbegale Lodge is a residential home which can accommodate up to 41 people. The home is split into three sections, residential, referred to as ‘The Lodge’ residential EMI referred to as ‘The Unit’ and younger adults with mental health needs, referred to as ‘The Villa.’ At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living across the three separate areas of the home.

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 last inspected this service in May 2017. During this inspection we found a breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. This was because some of the environmental checks on the building were not always completed, and we could not be sure if suitable action had been taken to protect people against the risk associated with this. After our inspection the registered provider sent us an action plan detailing what steps they were going to take to rectify these concerns, we checked this during this inspection and found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

We found at our last inspection in May 2017, the governance systems required improving. This was because they had not highlighted the concerns we found in relation to the environmental checks. We checked these had been improved during this inspection and found that they had.

We made a recommendation at our last inspection in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was because there were some records which contained conflicting information. We saw during this inspection that most information regarding people's capacity needs was clear and concise.

Training was recorded for each staff member in the training matrix. Training was a mixture of classroom based courses and E-learning sets. All new staff completed a twelve week induction process. We discussed specific training needs for staff who supported people with complex mental health problems. We saw that staff engaged in a basic programme of training, however, there was no specific training centred around people with enduring mental health needs. We have made a recommendation about this.

All of the staff we spoke with said that the service had improved since the new registered manager took up post 12 months ago.

Everyone we spoke with said that the food was of good quality, and there was clear improvement in the choices of food. The ordering processes for the food had changed since the last inspection and the chef told us this was a lot better.

There was a process in place to ensure staff were suitably recruited to enable them to work with vulnerable people. This included a police check, (referred to as a DBS) which standards for disclosing and baring service. Two verified references for staff, and proof of identification.

Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused, and all staff had been trained in safeguarding and discussed the action they would take to alert the appropriate professionals.

Risk assessments were reviewed every month, and written in way which explained what the risk was to the person and how the staff should reduce or manage the risk.

Medications were well managed and stored safely. Regular stock balance audits took place on medication by the registered manager and supporting pharmacist. Trolleys were kept locked when not in use and the temperature of the room was taken twice daily.

People had regular input from district nurses when they needed it as well as other medical professionals. The home was a member of the Care Home Innovation Progr

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 September 2018

The service was safe.

Medication was managed well by staff who were trained to do so.

Safety checks took place on the building and the equipment within it.

Staff were recruited safely and only offered positions once thorough checks had been completed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 22 September 2018

The service was not always effective.

The staff had the correct training to reflect their roles, however there was a lack of specific training around people's complex needs. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals.

The service was working in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and associated legislation.

The home was in the process of being redecorated, some areas of the home would benefit from further attention with regards to décor.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 September 2018

The service was caring.

We observed kind, caring and familiar interactions between staff and people who lived at the home.

Staff spoke about people with kindness and gave examples of how they respected people’s privacy.

People had been involved in their care plans where possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care which was right for them, and took into account their backgrounds, needs and wishes.

Complaints were appropriately responded to and documented in line with the service’s policies and procedures.

People were supported sensitively with arrangements for end of life care

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 September 2018

The service was well-led.

Everyone we spoke with said the home had improved in the last few months.

Quality assurance systems had improved, and regular checks were being completed by the manager and the provider.

There was a registered manager in post. People spoke positively about the registered manager.