Abbey Rose

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 – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had an initial assessment before they moved into the service to determine if the service was a suitable place for them and they could be supported by staff. Assessments included information about people’s health conditions, communication needs, emotional needs, nutritional and personal care needs and people’s history.

Records showed people’s views and opinions were respected, listened to and implemented as part of the day-to-day support. Relatives told us they were involved in the care needs and personal preferences of their relative, and staff were consistent in their approach to providing care and support, which was important to them.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Nationally recognised tools were used to determine risks to people’s health, such as, the Waterlow tool which identifies risks of skin integrity deterioration. We saw care was planned in response to the outcomes, for example, people were given pressure relieving equipment and staff were directed to support people to reposition to prevent pressure sores.

People's health conditions had been assessed and planned for. For example, people had choking risk assessments in place with recommended interventions, if this applied to them. If there were concerns about people’s diets, staff contacted speech and language therapists or dieticians to receive recommendations for staff and people to follow. Care plans provided staff with guidance about how to provide effective care and support. Staff observed people when they were eating their meals if they were at risk of choking. We saw staff provided assistance when people needed support to eat their meal, this was carried out promptly and respectfully.

Health needs were monitored. For example, people’s weights were regularly checked to enable responsive action to any significant increase or decrease in weights. Records showed any concerns had been identified and raised with the GP.

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.

The provider used an electronic care planning system, and staff told us this made information easily accessible. We saw input from healthcare professionals such as district nurses enabled people to have access timely specialist support.

The care manager knew who to contact for advice about people’s health and support needs and people had weekly checks from a nurse from the local GP surgery. Relatives confirmed staff worked well with speech and language therapists and occupational therapists in order to get the support and treatment required.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Relatives provided mixed feedback about the quality of the food, comments received in a recent survey stated, 'basic Asda range' and a relative told us “I've seen when I visit that they sometimes ask him what he wants to eat in the evening. And he's certainly not losing any weight. He likes the food here.” Another relative said "She doesn't enjoy the food. Be nice if she had more options as to choose."

We received mixed feedback from relatives regarding people's hydration "They certainly offer enough drinks and during the hot weather." Whereas another said “The drinks cup is really small. And whenever I go to see her, she's always thirsty and isn’t able to pour herself another glass of water, or to ask for one." People had very small cups of water, some had water jugs nearby, whereas as others didn’t. We observed at several different times during the day that no one upstairs was offered a hot drink or another alternative, such as squash or juice. This was raised to management and their advised that jugs would be in their rooms. Jugs of water did not appear in people’s room until after lunch, however, the jugs were not in reach of people. Many people upstairs lacked mobility and would not be able to walk to the other side of the room to retrieve the jug. There were drinks and biscuits available in main communal area. Staff told us, “The food is of good quality, and residents have enough food and drinks throughout the day.”

We received mixed feedback regarding activities, and we observed limited interactions with people unless it was task orientated. Comments made included; "Unfortunately the outside entertainers have recently been cut back, and the care staff have tried to fill in the gaps." And “There are no stimulating activities for her to do. She would have loved to be able to pot up some plants in the garden.” However, another relative told us there were lots of activities and “They have a list of activities, mum loves the music man.” Staff told us “More activities should be provided to keep residents engaged and promote their physical and mental wellbeing. And more opportunities for people to pursue their hobbies and interests.”

Staff supported people to maintain relationships that matter to them, such as family and friends. A relative told us, "I always have an update if there any issues and if I ever have any concerns."

Relatives told us they were involved in the care their loved one received.

Staff knew people very well and were alert to any changes in their well-being and health. If staff had any concerns they sought appropriate professional advice in a timely way.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Regular reviews of care plans were completed, both with the person and their relatives and by the provider. Relatives told us they were involved in reviewing the care and support their loved one receives. This ensured plans were effective in meetings people’s needs and remained current.

Staff knew people well and were alert to any changes in their well-being and health and sought professional advice in a timely way. A relative told us, “She gets the care she needs, and I don’t have to worry about her.”

Care notes were reviewed to ensure people were receiving their support as per care plans and to monitor people’s well-being and make referrals on to healthcare professionals should this be necessary. Staff told us, “We support residents by monitoring their health, encouraging them to attend appointments, promoting good nutrition and hydration, and reporting any concerns to the appropriate person promptly.” A relative told us, “I always have an update if there any issues and if I ever have any concerns I can always talk about them.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The care manager told us they fully understood where there was a concern about capacity, the necessary assessment would be completed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Decision making was supported by clear policies and processes. Records showed consent had been sought for the care provided. Policies and procedures underpinned practices within the service to ensure people’s rights were respected.

Staff had completed training in the MCA and were aware of the main principles. They told us they always assumed capacity unless a formal assessment determined otherwise.

We observed staff knocking on doors before entering people’s rooms. Staff told us, “We have been trained to respect residents’ choice. For example, residents make choices on what to wear, what they prefer to eat, when they want to go to bed.”

People were informed about their rights around consent and staff respected how they wished to receive person-centred care and treatment. People, as much as possible, made their own choices and decisions on a day-to-day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time.