We carried out a review of the data available to us about Abingdon Court Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Abingdon Court Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Abingdon Court is a care home. It is registered to provide personal and nursing care for up to 64 people across three separate wings, each of which has separate adapted facilities. At the time of our inspection 48 people were living at the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People living at Abingdon Court received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff. Staff knew how to identify and report any concerns. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place.
Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.
The provider’s care recording system had improved. People had access to meaningful activities which had been adapted in line with current guidelines. Staff consistency enabled people to receive good care from staff who knew them well. Staff knew how to support people during end of life care.
The home was well-led by a registered manager who had been in post since the last inspection and was committed to improving people’s quality of life. The service had a clear management and staffing structure in place and staff worked well as a team. The provider had established an effective quality assurance system to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff worked well with external social and health care professionals.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 23 October 2019).
At this inspection we found improvements had been made.
Why we inspected
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 24 September 2019. We rated the service requires improvement in three key questions.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had made improvements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Responsive and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Abingdon Court Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Abingdon Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 61 older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 64 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. However, the electronic care planning system was difficult to follow and at times had conflicting information. This meant people might not receive the right care specific to their needs.
There were not always sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs in a meaningful way. The area manager told us staff recruitment was on-going and they would review staff deployment. Medicines were not always managed safely. We found some minor discrepancies in medicine records which were reviewed immediately by staff. People’s access to activities needed to improve to prevent social isolation.
People living at Abingdon Court told us they received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff. Staff knew how to identify and report any concerns. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to maintain good health and to meet their nutritional needs.
People told us staff were caring. Staff consistency and team work enabled people to receive good care from staff who knew them well. The home environment was being improved and people would benefit from the changes.
Abingdon Court was led by a new registered manager who was focusing on addressing concerns and improving people’s care. Some changes had been implemented to support effective team working and improve people’s outcomes. The service had a clear management and staffing structure in place. Staff worked well as a team. The provider had introduced a new quality assurance system to monitor the quality and safety of the service. This had only been in place for a month and it was too early to assess its effectiveness.
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 20 November 2018).
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about staff deployment, medicines management and care planning and risk assessments. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe, responsive and well led sections of this full report.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Abingdon Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The care home accommodates up to 64 people in an adapted building. At the time of the inspection there were 63 people living at the service.
At our last inspection on 17 and 25 October 2017, the overall rating was requiring improvement. Two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 were identified. Following the inspection, we received an action plan which set out what actions were being taken to bring the service up to standard. At this inspection we found improvements in the service. We could see that action had been taken to improve staff support without breaching people’s rights. Actions had also been put in place to ensure consistent recording in care plans as well as putting in place effective quality assurance systems.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 told us they were safe living at Abingdon Court. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff demonstrated they understood how to keep people safe and we saw that risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. There were systems in place to manage safe administration and storage of medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed.
People had their needs assessed prior to living at Abingdon Court to ensure staff were able to meet people’s needs. Staff worked with various local social and health care professionals. Referrals for specialist advice were submitted in a timely manner.
People were supported by staff that had the right skills and knowledge to fulfil their roles effectively. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team. Staff support was through regular supervisions (one to one meetings with their line manager), appraisals and team meetings to help them meet the needs of the people they cared for.
People living at Abingdon Court were supported to meet their nutritional needs and maintain an enjoyable and varied diet. Meal times were considered social events. We observed a pleasant dining experience during our inspection. However, we saw staff language barrier affected how they interacted with people.
People told us they were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained. People were supported to maintain their independency. The provider had an equality and diversity policy which stated their commitment to equal opportunities and diversity. Staff knew how to support people without breaching their rights. The provider had processes in place to maintain confidentiality.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and report on what we find. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the MCA and applied its principles in their work. We saw people were supported without breaching their rights.
People knew how to complain and complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s complaints policy. People’s input was valued and they were encouraged to feedback on the quality of the service and make suggestions for improvements. Where people had received end of life care, staff had taken actions to ensure people would have as dignified and comfortable death as possible. People had access to meaningful activities.
People, their relatives and staff told us they felt Abingdon was well run. The registered manager and management team promoted a positive, transparent and open culture. Staff told us they worked well as a team. The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place which were used to drive improvement. The registered manager had a clear plan to develop and further improve the home. The home had established links with the local communities which allowed people to maintain their relationships.
We have made a recommendation about support for staff for whom English is not their first language as part of induction to ensure effective communication with people.
Abingdon Court Care home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 64 older people, some of them living with dementia who require personal or nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 57 people living at the service.
Abingdon Court was taken over by a new provider and registered as a new service as of 23 November 2016. The provider had made several changes on how the home was run and introduced different processes. This had resulted in high staff turnover with a lot of staff leaving and a lot of new staff recruited.
There was a registered manager 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. The registered manager worked closely with the deputy manager as well as the area operations manager.
Abingdon Court had staff vacancies and staff told us they focused on keeping people safe and did not have enough time to spend with people. People told us staff did not always have time to spend with them, however, they were attended to without unnecessary delay. The registered manager told us a lot of staff had left when the provider took over and they were actively recruiting. They had reduced the use of agency staff. The same agency staff were used to maintain continuity. They had also introduced new staff roles to support care staff. The registered manager told us they were doing all they could to ensure safe staffing levels. The home had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.
Risks to people’s well-being were assessed and managed safely to help them maintain their independence. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. Staff clearly understood how to safeguard people and protect their health and well-being. There were systems in place to manage safe administration and storage of medicines. People received their medicine as prescribed. However, some people who required when necessary (PRN) medicines did not always have PRN protocols in place.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and report on what we find. Staff did not always have a good understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people were thought to lack capacity, mental capacity assessments had not been completed. Some people did not have any records to show that best interest process having been followed. There was no evidence of guidance from a pharmacist on how best to administer the medicines covertly. The registered manager told us they understood their responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.
The provider’s systems and processes to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were not always effective in identifying areas for improvement. Accidents and incidents were recorded and followed up. However, trends identified were not always followed through.
People were supported by staff that had the right skills to fulfil their roles effectively. Records showed staff did not always receive regular supervisions (one to one meetings with their line manager). However, they told us they felt supported by the management team.
People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and maintain an enjoyable and varied diet. Meal times were considered social events. We observed a pleasant dining experience during our inspection.
Staff worked closely with various local social and health care professionals. Referrals for specialist advice were submitted in a timely manner. Staff knew the people they cared for. People's choices and wishes were respected and recorded in their care records. Where people had received end of life care, staff had taken actions to ensure people would have as dignified death as possible.
People were supported to access a variety of group activities. However, people who required one to one support where not always protected from the risk of social isolation. Staff did not always have time to spend with people.
People had their needs assessed before living at Abingdon Court to ensure staff were able to meet people’s needs. People’s care plans gave details of support required and were updated when people’s needs changed. People knew how to complain and complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s complaints policy. People’s input was valued and they were encouraged to feedback on the quality of the service and make suggestions for improvements.
The registered manager informed us of all notifiable incidents. People and staff spoke positively about the management and leadership they had from the registered manager.
We identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activity) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we have required the provider to take at the end of this report.