Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment 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.

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.

Person-centred care was observed throughout the service. Staff demonstrated a strong knowledge of the people they supported, including their individual likes, dislikes and daily routines. People were actively involved in decisions about their care with staff offering meaningful choice and responding to preferences in practice. For example, breakfast was prepared based on what people chose, rather than a fixed menu.

People were supported to access their local community, enabling them to maintain social connections and continue activities in meaningful ways, including visits to the local pubs and restaurants and day trips to places of interest. This enabled people to maintain a fulfilling social life and continue to experience activities that brought enjoyment, reflecting the service that looked beyond the home environment to support people’s overall well-being and quality of life.

Within the care home, a range of activities were available to meet people’s differing interests and abilities. Activities had been adapted to ensure people with limited mobility could participate fully, demonstrating an inclusive approach that ensured nobody was excluded from opportunities for engagement and enjoyment.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care was delivered by a consistent team, supporting people to build familiar and trusting relationships with staff. The provider maintained their own bank staff, meaning when additional cover was needed, people were supported by people they already knew and who understood their needs. This meant there was less disruption to people’s routines.

When people attended external appointments, they were accompanied by staff to help clearly communicate their needs and preferences.

Staff had undertaken training relevant to their roles, such as Dementia and Safeguarding training, to ensure they understood the needs of people living at the home.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

When leaders were asked about the Accessible Information Standards, they were unable to clearly demonstrate their understanding of its requirements. Whilst the formal understanding required strengthening at the leadership level, in practice, the service had taken several steps that reflected the principles in the standard.

People's communication needs were assessed and recorded within their care records, ensuring that staff had the information they needed to communicate effectively with each person. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to adapt their communication style to meet individual needs.

Menus included pictures, supporting people with cognitive or communication needs to make meaningful choices about their food and drinks. Documentation had previously been translated for a person whose first language was not English. Information was also provided in alternative print sizes.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People’s views were gathered through regular people’ meetings, with feedback recorded on an individual basis to ensure people’s views were heard and acted upon. This provided people with the structured opportunity to contribute to the running of the service.

The provider used a “You Said, We did” approach to communication to people’s feedback, providing actions taken in response. This approach demonstrated a transparent and accountable approach to engagement, ensuring people could see their views had been listened to and resulted in tangible changes.

Some relatives told us they were not aware if meetings took place and felt they had not been allowed to share their views. The provider told us relatives had previously not been attending meetings in person and, in response, had adapted their approach by introducing individual telephone calls to engage with relatives directly to gather feedback.

Where complaints had been raised, these had been reviewed, recorded and investigated. The majority of people we spoke to told us they had no cause for complaint and felt happy with the care being provided. Others told us they felt comfortable raising any concerns directly with the provider. The registered manager had an open-door policy. People and staff told us the registered manager was approachable, listened to and acted on any concerns.

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

People had their own private space within the home, providing them with a place of comfort and personal sanctuary. Alongside this, people had fair and equal access to a range of communal facilities, including lounges, dining areas and the external garden, enabling people to socialise and engage with others if they chose to. The home benefited from a purpose-built slope to ensure the access was fully accessible to all. People were able to move around the home freely and access the back garden.

Staff always had access to management support through a 24-hour on-call system, ensuring guidance and decision-making support were available outside of normal working hours. This enabled staff to respond promptly and effectively to any concerns, incidents or changes in people’s needs.

The service offered an open visiting policy with no restrictions on visiting times. Relatives and friends were welcome to visit freely, supporting people to maintain meaningful relationships.

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.

Care plans contained detailed information about people’s individual identity, including what mattered to them, their personal wishes and the relationships that were important to them.

Some relatives described improvements in their loved one’s well-being since moving into the service. One relative told us, “They have a better life than me, they are doing so well now.” This comment reflected the quality of care being provided and the genuine commitment of staff, ensuring people flourished and thrived.

People were 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.

Planning for the future was approached with sensitivity and on an individual basis. People’s end-of-life wishes were carefully considered. Records confirmed that RESPECT forms (people’s wishes regarding medical care are recorded when they are unable to express them in the future) were in place, reflecting a proactive approach to anticipatory care planning and ensuring people’s wishes regarding treatment had been clearly recorded.

The registered manager had undertaken additional training in advanced care planning, demonstrating a commitment to developing the knowledge and skills needed to support people and their families through conversations with compassion and confidence.