Abington Park View Care 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 means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life.
At our last assessment, this key question was rated good. At this assessment, it has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of care and support was not always consistent.
Care plans and assessments did not always provide up-to-date information to guide staff, and systems for monitoring staff competency and record accuracy required strengthening. People’s health needs were supported, but gaps in documentation and review processes limited assurance that outcomes were consistently monitored and evaluated.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
People’s needs were assessed before moving to the care home to ensure staff could meet their needs and that appropriate equipment was in place. People and their relatives were involved in reviewing their care plans and risk assessments, and a relative told us, “The care plans are updated regularly, and we are informed if any changes.”

Although care plans were in place, they were not always consistent or sufficiently detailed to guide staff in providing effective and safe care. Some plans lacked clear guidance on the frequency of safety and comfort checks, repositioning intervals, or support with feeding. For example, continence care plans for people who were doubly incontinent did not specify how often staff should assist with personal care. Similarly, for people who required support with eating and drinking, the care plans did not clearly describe safe feeding practices, such as the position the person should be supported in.

These gaps in care planning meant that staff did not always have the detailed information needed to deliver consistent and effective care. The registered manager took immediate steps to review these care plans and ensure that clear, specific guidance was added to support safe practice.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were supported to eat and drink well. However, not all care and support were provided in line with evidence-based guidance. One person on a Level 4 modified diet was offered soft sandwiches, which was contrary to the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) advice. This placed them at risk of choking or aspiration. Several people required modified diets and assistance with feeding, but their care plans did not include specific guidance on managing aspiration or choking risks. There was no information about signs to look for or actions to take if someone showed signs of choking.

The registered manager took immediate action to address this. Senior staff began monitoring all modified diets more closely, and care plans were reviewed and updated to include clear guidance on safe feeding and positioning.

There were also gaps identified in personal hygiene charts. These appeared to result from duplicate entries being made for the same task, such as “hands washed,” “clothes changed,” or “oral care,” recorded in multiple sections. The registered manager explained that these were recording errors and advised staff not to duplicate entries. The electronic documentation system was being reviewed to improve clarity and ensure accurate recording.

People and relatives, we spoke with felt that staff understood their needs, and action was taken when changes were identified. However, the lack of consistent evidence-based planning and recording placed people at potential risk of receiving unsafe or ineffective care.

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 worked closely with GPs, therapists, and dieticians to ensure people’s health needs were met. Visiting professionals praised the organisation and communication within the service. Staff told us they had ready access to people’s care plans, which enabled them to deliver consistent and appropriate support.

Communication within the team was effective. Daily handovers were used to share updates, new instructions, and any changes to people’s needs, ensuring care remained responsive and coordinated. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s care plans and were confident in accessing and using the information to provide safe, effective support.

These well-established communication systems helped ensure that care was joined up across the team and with external professionals, promoting continuity and consistency in people’s care.

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.

People told us they were supported to access healthcare services and treatment when needed. One person said, “Staff took me to have an eye test and the dentist three months ago.” A relative told us, “Staff understand her needs and encourage her to do things herself if it doesn’t harm her.”

People were supported to maintain good health and wellbeing. Staff checked vital signs monthly or more frequently when required and made timely referrals to health professionals, such as GPs, therapists and dieticians. Healthier food options were available, and dietary needs were considered when planning menus.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and demonstrated an understanding of how to promote good health. They encouraged people to stay active and respected individual preferences when providing care and support. Staff promoted people’s independence and choice, helping them to maintain control over their daily routines while supporting their overall wellbeing.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems were in place to monitor people’s health and wellbeing; however, oversight was not always effective in identifying or responding to emerging concerns. Bowel and continence care plans did not always include escalation procedures or clear instructions for staff. In some cases, bowel charts showed that people had not opened their bowels for several days, with no evidence of action being taken.

The continence care plans did not include information about constipation risk or guidance for staff on when and how to escalate concerns. This meant that delays in recognising or addressing these issues could have an impact on people’s comfort and health.

The registered manager acknowledged these gaps and agreed to review and update all care plans to ensure they contained clear, specific instructions for staff. Work had already started to improve the accuracy and consistency of care records, and staff had been reminded to monitor bowel patterns and record actions taken in response to any changes.

While people’s overall health outcomes were stable and staff acted quickly when prompted, stronger oversight of care monitoring and escalation was needed to ensure sustained improvement and consistent practice.

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

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were not in place for all people who required them. The registered manager agreed to review capacity assessments and ensure DoLS submissions were made where appropriate. There were no decision-specific Mental Capacity Act (MCA) or Best Interest assessments in place, other than for the use of floor mats and 24-hour care. The registered manager immediately began addressing this to ensure all required assessments were completed.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and sought consent before providing care and support. We observed staff explaining what they were doing and asking for people’s agreement before proceeding.

Although staff followed appropriate consent practices in daily care, the lack of formal documentation and oversight of MCA, Best Interest, and DoLS processes showed that governance in this area required improvement.