Abbeydale Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Assessments were completed before people moved into the service and reflected people’s needs, histories and preferences. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of individuals and involved professionals appropriately.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

For example, records for people on level‑4 modified diets [a diet which is purred in texture] were inconsistent, staff did not always record what food people were having. We also saw some missing information for a person who required catheter changes, however, there as information recorded in other records around this.

We raised this with the provider who implemented this straight away. We observed staff provided safe care in practice and professional feedback was positive. The provider had identified some updates were required during a monthly audit and were in the process of updating plans at the time of inspection.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff communicated well during handovers and used electronic systems effectively. MDT working was positive, with health professionals reporting the home was proactive, well organised and clinically safe. Joint reviews helped prevent avoidable hospital admissions.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Weight monitoring, dietitian referrals, speech and language therapy (SALT) involvement and action‑planning around weight loss were evident. People could choose meals and staff encouraged mobility where possible.

The provider mostly monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did mostly ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

For example, while the service monitored outcomes, some records were inconsistent. Gaps in repositioning charts, nutrition records and supplement logs made information appear confusing. We raised this at the time with the registered manager who took immediate action to address this.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Some best‑interest decisions needed updating where care had changed, also more information was required for some people around who was involved in more complex decision making, such as the use of bedrails. We raised this with the registered manager who was taking action to address this.