Abbey Lodge

We found the following examples of good infection prevention and control (IPC) practice.

There was an effective process and systems in place for visitors/professionals visiting the service, in line with the government guidance.

Individual risk assessments were in place for any person or staff member at an increased risk of infection which included being able to isolate. There was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) available and staff used this effectively.

Good cleaning regimes were in place. The service was clean, odour and clutter free.

Abbey Lodge is a care home for people who are living with learning disabilities or an autistic spectrum disorder. There were six people living at the home at the time of this inspection. The home consists of one large detached house spread over two floors. Each person has their own bedroom with shared bathrooms/shower facilities, one large sitting room and conservatory and shared kitchen/dining room.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The majority of people who lived at the home were unable to communicate verbally but we observed staff supporting people with a range of communication aids, which included signing and interpreting people’s body language with regards to meeting their needs and wishes. People welcomed us into their home and told us they felt safe and happy living at Abbey Lodge.

Staff were clear about their role in supporting people and about how they positively managed risks to people's safety and well-being. There were clear plans on how to support people to have independence and control over their lives while promoting their safety, comfort and wellbeing.

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report concerns. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to ensure that all staff were suitably qualified and experienced. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available to meet people's individual needs. People were supported to manage their medicines safely.

The atmosphere in the home was welcoming and there were positive and caring interactions between the staff and the people who lived in the home. People told us they were fully involved in planning their care and they were encouraged to develop their skills and interests. There were clear plans on how people wished to be supported and the goals they wanted to achieve. People enjoyed a varied healthy diet and their physical and mental health needs were well catered for.

We found that people’s lives were significantly enhanced by a staff team who were committed and enthusiastic in striving to support people who live with complex needs and every day challenges.

People’s permission was sought before staff assisted them with care or support. Staff were supported to develop the required skills and knowledge to provide care effectively to people.

People’s relatives were encouraged to be involved in reviewing people’s support plans. People were actively supported to maintain family relationships and friendships.

The home was well led by a registered manager who knew the people and staff and supported them to have their views and ideas heard and acted upon. There was a positive open culture with staff working together in an atmosphere which valued their contribution to the service. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and promote continuous improvement.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

One person we spoke with said that they felt safe living at the home. We saw evidence that care plans were person centred and risk assessments had been undertaken to help minimise the risk to people living at the home. However, we noted that monthly care plan reviews did not always demonstrate that people and/or their relatives had been involved in the process.

Health and safety checks were regularly undertaken by the manager to ensure that the home was safe for people to reside in.

Is the service effective?

We looked at the care records of two people who lived at the home. We found these provided details of what people were able to do for themselves as well as what support they needed.

The provider had not had reason to undertaken capacity assessments, however within people's care plan details of their ability to make decisions and/or the support they would need to make a decision was recorded. Although the provider had not made any applications to the local authority in respect of Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DOLs), the provider had a clear protocol in place for dealing with Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

Is the service caring?

During our inspection we observed a staff member assisting a person who was non-verbal with a task. We saw that the staff member was patience and sought consent from the person before assisting them. We heard other staff speaking with people in a polite and friendly manner.

Is the service responsive?

During our inspection we observed that staff responded in a timely manner when people asked for help. Care plans showed that each person had an individual activity plan and were supported by staff to access services in the local community as appropriate.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place, which sought the views of people who used the service, their relatives and stakeholders. We saw that audits had been undertaken in a number of areas. However, we found that medication audits did not always have an action plan following findings of non-compliance.