You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The inspection took place on 16 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection continued on 17 October 2018 and was announced.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and residential and nursing care for up to 24 older people. At the time of our inspection the service was providing residential care to 21 people.

Abbey Rose is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. People were supported in a large detached home which was spread over two floors. There was a large communal lounge and dining area on the ground floor. Access to the first floor was via lift or two staircases and there were accessible outside areas to the rear of the home and an enclosed garden.

At the last inspection in September 2017, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements in two areas. These were management of medicines and quality monitoring. These actions had been completed.

The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The home was using overt surveillance within the home however, consent had not been sought and consultations had not been held with people and relatives for the use of it.

We have made a recommendation about the use of surveillance inside a care home

Improvements had been made and medicines were administered and managed safely by trained staff. Staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected. There were enough staff to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. People had person centred risk assessments which identified individual risks they faced and provided actions for staff to safely manage these. The service was responsive when things went wrong and reviewed practices in a timely manner.

People and families had been involved in assessments about their care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. Their care was provided by staff who had received an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. People had their eating and drinking needs understood and met. Opportunities to work in partnership with other organisations took place to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service. Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed and up to date.

People, professionals and their families described the staff as caring, kind and friendly and the atmosphere of the home as homely. People were able to express their views about their care and felt in control of their day to day lives. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.

Improvements had been made regarding social engagement within the home. People told us they enjoyed activities within the home and an activities coordinator had been employed. People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they could communicate their needs, their life histories and the people important to them. A complaints process was in place and people felt they would be listened to and actions taken if they raised concerns. People’s end of life wishes were known including their individual spiritual and cultural wishes.

Improvements had been made in relation to quality monitoring and systems were in place to ensure people and relatives were involved in shaping the service. People, relatives and professionals told us that they had experienced improvements in the home since the last inspec

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was safe. Staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and who to report these to.

Medicines were managed safely and administered by nurses or medicine administrators who had received training.

People had person centred risk assessments which identified individual risks they faced and provided actions for staff to follow to minimise avoidable harm.

There were enough safely recruited staff to meet people�s needs.

People were supported in an environment which was kept clean and safe with regular monitoring checks and cleaning.

Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was effective. Staff told us they received enough training to carry out their roles.

Consent was not sought and consultations had not been held with people and relatives for the use of overt surveillance within the home.

Principles of the Mental Capacity Act were followed and paperwork was in place and up to date.

People were supported to access health care and dietary needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was caring. People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

People were supported by staff that used person centred approaches to deliver the care and support they provided.

Staff had a good understanding of the people they cared for and supported them in decisions about how they liked to live their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was responsive. Staff supported people in ways which responded to their changing needs.

People and families were involved in reviewing their care and support.

A complaints system was in place which recorded steps taken to resolve issues and outcomes. People and families were aware of who to raise concerns with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was well led. There was a registered manager in post.

Improvements had been made and quality monitoring systems were in place and up to date.

People, staff, professionals and relatives feedback about the management was positive.

Leadership was visible and the management promoted an open-door approach.

Lessons were learnt and shared amongst the team.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to provide positive outcomes for people.