Archived: Abbeyfield House

Updated 11 April 2017

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.

The inspection took place on 16 and 17 February 2017 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we looked at the information we held about the home. This included notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We reviewed previous inspection reports. We did not request a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to our inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We requested this information during our inspection. We also obtained the views of service commissioners from the local council who also monitored the service provided by the home.

During the inspection we spoke with five people and one relative about their views on the quality of the care and support being provided. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and six staff members including the cook and the general assistant. We looked at documentation relating to three people who used the service, three staff recruitment and training records and records relating to the management of the service. Following the inspection we spoke with a further three relatives and requested feedback from a health professional who visited the service.

Updated 11 April 2017

This inspection took place on 16 and 17 February 2017 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Abbeyfield House can accommodate up to 17 older people who require personal care. There were 16 people living at the home during our inspection.

A registered manager was responsible for the service. This 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.

Some improvements were required to ensure people’s medicines were stored and administered safely.

People’s care plans did not include specific guidance for staff on what people could do themselves, people’s preferences and what support was required from staff.

People, their relatives and staff said the home was a safe place for people. People spoke highly of the care they received. One person said, “I feel very safe here.” Systems were in place to protect people from harm and abuse and staff knew how to follow them.

People were supported by a sufficient number of staff to keep them safe. Risk assessments had been carried out and they contained guidance for staff on protecting people. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure that staff working with people were suitable for their roles.

People were complimentary about the food provided and had access to nutritious home cooked food. One person told us, “The food is very nice here.” People told us they had access to enough food and drinks.

Staff had enough training to keep people safe and meet their needs; the registered manager had plans in place where staff required refresher training in some subjects.

There was a stable staff team at the home. Staff were kind and caring. They had a good knowledge of people’s care needs. People received support from health and social care professionals.

People were involved in decisions about the running of the home as well as their own care. People knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to but no one had needed to.

There were organised activities and people were able to choose to socialise or spend time alone. People and relatives felt able to raise concerns with staff and the manager.

Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and felt there was an open door policy to raise concerns. People and relatives were complimentary about the registered manager, deputy manager and staff; they said they had a good open relationship with them.

There were systems in place to share information and seek people's and relatives views about the care and the running of the home.

There were quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan on-going improvements. These processes were not fully effective in identifying the shortfalls we found during our inspection.