We carried out a review of the data available to us about Abbey House 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 Abbey House, you can give feedback on this service.
Abbey House is a residential care home providing care and accommodation to up to eight people living with learning disabilities, sensory impairments or physical disabilities. They specialise in supporting people living with Prader-Willi syndrome. Prader-Willi syndrome is a genetic condition which causes a range of physical symptoms and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were eight people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
Based on our review of safe and well led the service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture. The provider was passionate about promoting people’s independence and supporting people to develop their skills and reduce restrictions.
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 involved in managing their own risks whenever possible. Staff anticipated and managed risk in a person-centred way, there was a culture of positive risk taking
People and relatives gave mixed feedback about whether people always felt safe living at the service. There were times people living at the service experienced emotional distress which impacted on others wellbeing. The provider had implemented strategies and procedures to manage the risks and impact on people. People confirmed they felt safer with the measures the provider had implemented and were regularly asked for their feedback.
People and staff were supported to attend safeguarding training. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. There were appropriate policies and systems in place to safeguard people.
People’s care and support was provided in a safe, clean, well equipped and well-furnished environment. The environment met peoples sensory and physical needs. There was some maintenance the provider was in the process of carrying out which when completed would enhance the environment.
People told us there were generally enough staff to meet their needs and we observed safe staffing levels throughout the inspection. Most staff confirmed there were enough staff, although agency staff were required to support staffing levels. The provider adjusted staffing levels to meet people’s changing needs and supported additional staffing when required. However, some staff felt additional training and support for night staff would be helpful.
Accidents and incidents were documented and investigated with action taken to prevent a reoccurrence. The provider supported people and staff with debriefs following incidents and opportunities to feedback.
During the inspection staff were relaxed, confident and engaged with people consistently. We observed people being offered choice and being listened to. The registered manager understood the service they managed. They had a vision for the service and for each person who used the service. We observed the open-door policy in place within the service. Throughout the inspection people and staff approached the registered manager and we observed people clearly knew the registered manager.
People worked with managers and staff to develop and improve the service. The registered manager had a service improvement plan in place to drive improvements to the service. The management and staff team worked in partnership with a variety of healthcare professionals and had developed good working relationships which supported positive outcomes for people.
The provider had systems and processes in place for monitoring the quality of care and to drive improvements. Staff felt included, confident and supported in making suggestions. The registered manager spoke about the importance of valuing staff and strived to be inclusive and supportive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 21 March 2019).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to safeguarding. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection. We found the provider had effective strategies, procedures and policies in place to mitigate the risk of harm to people. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.
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 COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Abbey House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
¿ Abbey House provides a home for people living with Prader-Willi syndrome. Prader-Willi syndrome is a genetic condition which causes a range of physical symptoms and learning disabilities. The physical symptoms include an extremely increased appetite and reduced muscle strength.
¿ Abbey House is a residential home for up to eight people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However the building design fitted into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size.
¿ There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
¿ There were four people living at Abbey House at the time of the inspection.
¿ For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ The service was new, it was the first service for people with Prader-Willi syndrome run by the provider, and by the registered manager.
¿ We found Abbey House was providing a good service for people and supporting them to achieve good outcomes.
¿ The service promoted people’s independence and put them at the centre of the care and support they provided.
¿ People were supported to maintain a healthy weight with a balanced diet. The service understood how important good management of people’s food and drink was and had good measures in place to support people.
¿ People had access to various activities to keep them physically active and explore their interests, such as horse riding, swimming and attending the gym.
¿ People told us they liked living in the home. People’s families were positive about the service and felt it was meeting their loved one’s needs.
Rating at last inspection:
¿ This was the first inspection of the service since it registered with the CQC on 24 January 2018.
Why we inspected:
¿ This inspection was scheduled to be completed within 12 months of the service registering with the CQC.
Follow up:
¿ We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore re-inspect this service within the published timeframe for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.