Abbeywood House

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

The key question of effective was rated requires improvement at our last inspection. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made to properly assess and record people’s capacity and best interest decisions. The provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 11 relating to consent to care and treatment. Most people we spoke with told us their care was reflective of their needs. The service was no longer in breach of Regulation 9 related to person-centred care. The service had new systems in place to assess people prior to moving into the service. There was also evidence of the service working with other agencies to ensure people’s care was person centred and regular professional intervention was requested when needed. Due to the service not being assured people’s assessed needs were always being met this contributed to the breach in Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment). The key question of effective remains requires improvement.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us their relatives were kept up to date. People living at the service and their relatives were happy with the care provided. One person told us, “They are very caring, I don’t worry, there are no concerns. the food is good, and they take good care of me”.

Staff said that they were able to understand how to meet people’s assessed care needs by reviewing their care plans. All staff said they always aimed to care for people the best way they could and understood the importance of providing person-centred care.

The service identified that care plans needed to include people’s likes, dislikes, history and significant relationship information to ensure they were person-centred. Where the service had assessed people’s needs such as needing regular repositioning, we found gaps within these records. This meant the provider could not be assured that people were having all their needs regularly met. The service did not complete care plan audits, and daily checks did not identify the shortfalls in these records. This contributed to a continued breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We spoke with people to learn more about their experiences of using the service. People’s feedback did not highlight any concerns regarding consent.

Staff said they received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were able to show a working understanding of how they applied it in their roles. Staff told us how conditions such as dementia may affect people’s ability to make some decisions.

The provider had systems in place to work within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). There was evidence of the service working with people and others involved in their care when a person could not make a decisions and processes were in place to make sure any decisions would be made in their best interest.