Abbeymoor Neurodisability Centre

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 service met people’s needs. At the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

People experienced care which reflected who they were, what mattered to them, and how they wished to be supported. Staff demonstrated a strong ethos of dignity, empathy and individualised care, and people’s daily routines and preferences meaningfully shaped how support was delivered. Care plans were person specific and reflected people’s preferences, histories and goals. People were actively involved in planning and reviewing their care where possible, and where people could not participate fully, relatives or those who knew them well were involved. Staff promoted people’s autonomy through everyday choices, including involvement in décor decisions, meaningful activities and recruitment processes. This approach supported people’s dignity and sense of purpose and contributed to positive outcomes, including reablement and progression to less restrictive environments.

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked closely with a wide range of health and social care professionals, including GPs, specialist neurological services, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and community partners. Professionals consistently described the service as collaborative, open and solution focused. Transitions, including admissions, leave and discharge, were carefully planned, with staff investing time to build familiarity, prepare receiving teams and maintain contact during transition periods. This helped reduce risks and supported sustainable placements.

People received appropriate and accurate information tailored to their needs. The service had systems in place to meet the Accessible Information Standard. Information was available in a range of formats, including easy read, pictorial, digital and translated materials. Staff worked with speech and language therapists and occupational therapists to support people with communication needs, including the use of assistive technology. However, practice was not fully consistent. Staff did not always use interpreters or translators when supporting people whose first language was not English, particularly during capacity assessments and best interest decision making. The management team recognised this gap and acknowledged the need to strengthen practice to ensure language was not a barrier to people’s involvement.

The provider and management team enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. People told us they felt able to express their opinions and that staff took their preferences seriously, and they felt involved in care planning. They felt comfortable discussing any aspects of the running of the service with staff. Relatives told us the registered manager was approachable and responsive, and that any concerns raised were acted on quickly. Professionals reported that the home was proactive in involving families in multidisciplinary planning, and that people’s perspectives were consistently represented in discussions about care.

Staff made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff worked to accommodate individual preferences, such as meal choices and adapted activities. staff fully understood people’s needs and how they were to work with people. The multidisciplinary team visited weekly and ensured people received care and treatment in a timely manner. The environment was adapted to meet the various needs of people, such as with their mobility and to reduce risks of falls.

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. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. The registered manager ensured peoples’ social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met. Relatives expressed confidence in the service, saying their loved ones were happy and their needs met.

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The management team were very committed to ensuring people received support that was responsive and personalised. Staff worked closely with people, families and professionals to set realistic goals and prepare for next steps, including step‑down placements and end-of-life care where appropriate. Planning was holistic and focused on rehabilitation, reablement and progression. The nursing team were very skilled at supporting people with a range of complex healthcare needs to reach their full potential. For example, people had moved to the home with complex healthcare needs which external clinicians felt would remain static. However, over time staff had supported people to make significant improvement. Transitions were carefully managed, with clear pathways and ongoing support to reduce risk and promote sustainability. For some people their goal was to make the best of the time they had left, and staff were very adept at supporting people achieve this goal whilst they drew near to the end of their life.