Abington Park View Care Home

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 means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s individual needs.
At our last assessment, this key question was rated good. At this assessment, the rating remains good. This meant people’s needs continued to be met through effective organisation and delivery of care.
Care plans reflected people’s personal preferences and were reviewed as their needs changed. Activities and engagement were provided in line with people’s interests, and complaints were managed appropriately with actions taken when required.

This service scored 71 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care was delivered in a person-centred way that reflected people’s individual needs, but there were areas where the approach was not always tailored to individual requirements. For example, all people were placed on food and fluid monitoring charts, including those who were independent in managing their own nutrition and hydration. This blanket approach resulted in unnecessary recording and created gaps in documentation, such as missed fluid targets. In some cases, no follow-up action was taken when targets were not met.

The registered manager reviewed this process and confirmed that only people who required monitoring would remain on food and fluid charts, and this would be reinforced during daily handovers.

Additionally, one person’s care plan specified that they required repositioning every two hours. However, this was not always followed, which impacted the consistency of their care.

Despite these issues, people appeared settled and content, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of individual preferences. Activities were taking place, and staff worked well as a team to engage people meaningfully. Staff were observed engaging with people in a friendly and respectful manner, taking time to listen to them and respond to their needs.

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.

Effective communication and structured handovers supported continuity of care. Records confirmed that referrals to external professionals were made in a timely manner, and staff worked collaboratively to ensure people received consistent, well-coordinated support.

One relative told us, “They have worked hard to keep him safe. He has had several falls during the night, but they have responded quickly each time, and now he has a safety mat in his bed.” Another said, “They consult with the GP and specialists when needed. I have never had trouble getting her seen by the doctor.”

People were supported to access healthcare services whenever required. Staff had a good understanding of people’s health needs and worked closely with professionals such as GPs, therapists and dieticians. Records showed clear communication between staff and visiting professionals to ensure care remained consistent and responsive.

People’s information was kept up to date so it could be shared promptly with hospital and healthcare professionals in the event of an emergency. These systems supported joined-up, person-centred care and ensured people’s health and wellbeing needs were met.

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

Information was displayed clearly and available in accessible formats to support people’s understanding. People had access to technology, such as telephones and iPads, to stay in contact with family and friends. Kitchen staff were attentive and used show plates to help people choose their meals, which was very effective in supporting choice.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s communication needs and supported them in line with the Accessible Information Standard. We observed staff recognising and responding to people’s body language and facial expressions, effectively supporting non-verbal communication.

Activity information was clearly displayed in communal areas, and people were encouraged to participate in events and outings that matched their interests. Relatives told us communication with the service was good, and staff ensured any changes in care were explained promptly and in a way that was easily understood.

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 and relatives were involved in decisions about their care, and feedback was actively sought through meetings and surveys. Action was taken in response to comments raised, ensuring that people’s voices were heard and valued. Records showed that concerns were documented, investigated and analysed to identify trends and prevent recurrence.

One person said, “I can choose when I get up and what I wear. I decide when I want to shower, and they don’t rush me.” A relative told us, “They always ask us if we want to be involved in decisions regarding her care.”

People were also included in decisions about their day-to-day support. Relatives felt involved in care planning and reviews, and staff were observed involving people in choices about their daily routines and activities.

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

There were no barriers to admission, and people had equal access to healthcare professionals, activities, and opportunities within the home. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service, ensuring that any necessary adaptations or equipment were in place from the start. Care was delivered without discrimination, and people’s cultural and religious preferences were respected and supported.

Staff understood the needs of the people they cared for and knew how to access people’s information in case of a medical emergency or for out-of-hours support. People had timely access to support from healthcare professionals, such as GPs, dieticians, and tissue viability nurses. Records showed that staff worked effectively with external professionals to ensure that care was provided promptly when needed.

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.

People were treated fairly and consistently, regardless of their needs or backgrounds. Staff adapted care to meet individual circumstances, particularly for those with limited communication. They were able to recognise and respond to body language and non-verbal cues to ensure people’s needs were met.

Care plans included important details about people’s preferences, family connections, and cultural or spiritual needs, and staff used this information to provide person-centred care. Relatives told us their family members were treated with respect and fairness, and they felt confident that no one was being overlooked or disadvantaged.

Relatives praised the staff for being caring and attentive, and they spoke highly of the personalised support their loved ones received.

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.

Care plans included end-of-life wishes for people who chose to discuss them. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals and families to ensure compassionate care was provided in line with people’s preferences.

One relative told us, “The care team is proactive in anticipating her future care needs. They discuss long-term plans with us.” Another relative said, “When her health changes, they inform us and work together to develop a future plan for her care.”

Staff were trained to provide end-of-life care and were knowledgeable about where people’s plans and related documents were stored. This ensured that people’s wishes were respected and supported appropriately when needed.