Archived: Abingdon Court Care Home

Updated 8 October 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 24 August 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector, a dementia Specialist Advisor and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and the service provider. The registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the notifications we had received for this service. Notifications are information about important events the service is required to send us by law. We received feedback from two social and health care professionals who regularly visited people living in the home. This was to obtain their views on the quality of the service provided to people and how the home was being managed. We also contacted commissioners of the service to seek their views.

We spoke with 12 people and ten relatives. We looked at eight people’s care records including medicine administration records (MAR). During the inspection we spent time with people. We looked around the home and observed the way staff interacted with people. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a means of understanding the experiences of people who could not speak with us verbally. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and nine members of staff which included nurses, care staff, housekeeping and catering staff. We reviewed a range of records relating to the management of the home. These included eight staff files, quality assurance audits, minutes of meetings with people and staff, incident reports, complaints and compliments. We reviewed feedback from people who used the service and their relatives.

Updated 8 October 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 24 August 2016.

We last inspected this service on 30 June 2015 and we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. On this inspection we found some improvements had been made.

Abingdon Court care home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 64 older people some of whom were living with dementia and require personal or nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were 61 people living at the service.

There was a manager in post who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 manager worked closely with the deputy manager.

People who were supported by the service felt safe. Staff had a clear understanding on how to safeguard people and protect their health and well-being. There were systems in place to manage safe administration and storage of medicines.

People had a range of individualised risk assessments in place to keep them safe and to help them maintain their independence. Where required, staff involved a range of other professionals in people’s care.

The service had enough suitably qualified and experienced staff to meet people's needs. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

The manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Where people were thought to lack capacity to make certain decisions, assessments had been completed in line with the principles of MCA. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.

Staff received adequate training and support to carry out their roles effectively. People felt supported by competent staff who benefitted from regular supervision (one to one meetings with their line manager) and team meetings to help them meet the needs of the people they cared for.

People’s nutritional needs were met and people benefited from a good dining experience. People were given choices and received their meals in a timely manner. People were supported with meals in line with their care plans.

Staff knew the people they cared for and what was important to them. Staff appreciated people’s unique life histories and understood how these could influence the way people wanted to be cared for. People's choices and wishes were respected and recorded in their care records.

People had access to activities and stimulation opportunities, however, these could be improved. People received limited one to one activities. The service structured group activities to people's interests.

Where people had received end of life care, staff had taken actions to ensure people would have as dignified and comfortable death as possible. End of life care was provided in a compassionate way.

Leadership within the service was open and transparent at all levels. The provider had quality assurance systems in place. The provider had systems to enable people to provide feedback on the care they received.

The manager informed us of all notifiable incidents. The manager had a clear plan to develop and further improve the home. Staff spoke positively about the management support and leadership they received from the manager.