The inspection took place on 23 & 25 June 2015 and was unannounced. Abbey Retirement Home provides accommodation and care for up to 15 older people with mental health needs or people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living at the home.
The home had a registered manager who has been registered since October 2014. 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.’
We found people’s safety was compromised in some areas. Infection control guidance issued by the Department of Health was not followed and the risks of cross infection were not managed effectively. The sluice room was being used to store some small items of people’s personal clothing. The recommended process for dealing with clean linen was not used.
Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. Decisions were taken in the best interests of people. However, we had not been informed where a person had a Deprivation of Liberty safeguarding authorisation in place.
People were supported to receive their medicines safely from suitably trained staff. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Relevant checks were conducted before staff started working at Abbey Retirement Home to make sure staff were of good character and had the necessary skills.
People received varied and nutritious meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and offered alternatives if they did not want the menu option of the day.
People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Staff members knew about people’s lives and backgrounds and used this information to support them effectively. Support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes.
People (and their families where appropriate) were involved in assessing, planning and agreeing the care and support they received. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. Their privacy and dignity was protected.
Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.
People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a wide range of activities tailored to their specific interests. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service.
Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. Decisions were taken in the best interests of people. However, we had not been informed where a person had a Deprivation of Liberty safeguarding authorisation in place.
People liked living at the home and felt it was well-led. There was an open and transparent culture with people able to access the community as part of their daily activities. There were appropriate management arrangements in place and staff and people told us they were encouraged to talk to the registered manager about any concerns.
We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.
You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.