We carried out a review of the data available to us about Abbegale Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Abbegale Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Abbegale Lodge is a residential home which can accommodate up to 41 people. The home is split into three sections, residential, referred to as ‘The Lodge’ residential EMI referred to as ‘The Unit’ and younger adults with mental health needs, referred to as ‘The Villa.’ At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living across the three separate areas of the home.
A registered manager was in post. 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 last inspected this service in May 2017. During this inspection we found a breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. This was because some of the environmental checks on the building were not always completed, and we could not be sure if suitable action had been taken to protect people against the risk associated with this. After our inspection the registered provider sent us an action plan detailing what steps they were going to take to rectify these concerns, we checked this during this inspection and found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.
We found at our last inspection in May 2017, the governance systems required improving. This was because they had not highlighted the concerns we found in relation to the environmental checks. We checked these had been improved during this inspection and found that they had.
We made a recommendation at our last inspection in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was because there were some records which contained conflicting information. We saw during this inspection that most information regarding people's capacity needs was clear and concise.
Training was recorded for each staff member in the training matrix. Training was a mixture of classroom based courses and E-learning sets. All new staff completed a twelve week induction process. We discussed specific training needs for staff who supported people with complex mental health problems. We saw that staff engaged in a basic programme of training, however, there was no specific training centred around people with enduring mental health needs. We have made a recommendation about this.
All of the staff we spoke with said that the service had improved since the new registered manager took up post 12 months ago.
Everyone we spoke with said that the food was of good quality, and there was clear improvement in the choices of food. The ordering processes for the food had changed since the last inspection and the chef told us this was a lot better.
There was a process in place to ensure staff were suitably recruited to enable them to work with vulnerable people. This included a police check, (referred to as a DBS) which standards for disclosing and baring service. Two verified references for staff, and proof of identification.
Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused, and all staff had been trained in safeguarding and discussed the action they would take to alert the appropriate professionals.
Risk assessments were reviewed every month, and written in way which explained what the risk was to the person and how the staff should reduce or manage the risk.
Medications were well managed and stored safely. Regular stock balance audits took place on medication by the registered manager and supporting pharmacist. Trolleys were kept locked when not in use and the temperature of the room was taken twice daily.
People had regular input from district nurses when they needed it as well as other medical professionals. The home was a member of the Care Home Innovation Programme (CHIP) and made use of this facility. The service worked in conjunction with physiotherapists, health nurses (RMN)s and psychiatrists to ensure people had effective care and treatment.
We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people who lived at the home. Staff spoke kindly and fondly about people, and demonstrated a good knowledge about them, their likes and their needs. People told us they liked the staff and felt that they were kind to them.
People were supported to eat and drink in accordance with their needs. People, who were assessed as at risk of weight loss, had appropriate documentation in place to monitor their food and fluid intake. Where specialist diets were needed for some people, the chef had knowledge of this.
Most areas of the home and some people's bedrooms had been refurbished to a high standard. The registered provider had clearly made some improvements to the fixtures and fittings of the home since our last inspection. There was, however, still some further improvements which were needed and were planned in for completion.
There were positive examples of person centred information in people’s care plans. Since our last inspection the registered manager had introduced new documentation which was more in depth and provided more information about people, their likes, dislikes and how they wanted their support to be delivered.
There was a procedure in place to document and address complaints. Everyone we spoke with said they knew how to complain. The complaints procedure was displayed in the communal areas of the home.
Feedback was regularly gathered from people who lived at the home and their relatives and used to improve their experience of living at Abbegale Lodge. The registered manager had attempted to arrange meetings with relatives at certain points in the day, over a series of days, however most people did not attend.
Abbegayle Lodge is a residential home which can accommodate up to 41 people. The home is split into three sections, residential, referred to as ‘The Lodge’ residential EMI referred to as ‘The Unit’ and younger adults with mental health needs, referred to as ‘The Villa.’ At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living across the three separate areas of the home.
A registered manager was in post. 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 registered manager was on leave during our inspection.
We raised some concerns during the first day of our inspection with regards to the maintenance records in one part of the home, the Lodge. We were unable to locate some of the checks which we would expect to see, for example, the water temperatures and legionella checks. We were able to view some these on the second day of our inspection however, we identified some concerns. We have since been sent some additional information from the registered manager.
Some of the quality assurance procedures were of good standard, and audits (checks) were completed in care planning, falls, safeguarding’s, cleaning and health and safety. However, these audits failed to highlight some of the issues concerning health and safety checks that we found during our inspection.
There were mixed responses with regards to staffing in all parts of the home. Our observations showed that there were enough staff to support people safely, however, some staff raised they were often short in numbers and found it difficult to manage. People we spoke with who lived at the home told us there was enough staff to support them with their day to day needs. We have made a recommendation regarding this.
We received mixed responses regarding the food served at the home. Some comments indicated there was not always enough variety of food being served and the food was not always good quality. We sampled the food ourselves and found it to be of a good standard, and menus were varied and balanced.
The home was working in accordance to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) however, some information recorded in care plans was not always accurate. We have made a recommendation regarding this.
There was a process in place to ensure staff were suitably recruited to enable them to work with vulnerable people. This included a police check, (referred to as a DBS) which standards for disclosing and baring service. Two verified references for staff, and proof of identification.
Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused, and all staff had been trained in safeguarding.
Risk assessments were reviewed every month, and written in way which explained what the risk was to the person and how the staff should manage the risk.
Medications were well managed and stored safely. Regular stock balance audits took place on medication by the registered manager and supporting pharmacist.
Training was recorded for each staff member in the home’s training matrix. Training was a mixture of classroom based courses and E-learning sets. All new staff completed a twelve week induction processes.
People had regular input from district nurses when they needed it as well as other medical professionals. The home was member of the Care Home Innovation Programme (CHIP) and made use of this facility.
We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people who lived at the home. Staff spoke kindly and fondly about people, and demonstrated a good knowledge about them, their likes and their needs. People told us they liked the staff and felt that they were kind to them.
There was information recorded in people’s care plans which was person centred. Person centred means based around the needs of the person and not the service. Information we looked at described what the person liked to do and how they liked their routine to be followed.
There had been three formal complaints documented in the last 12 months. We saw the complaints procedure clearly displayed, and everyone we spoke with told us they knew how to make a complaint.
People confirmed they knew who the registered manager was. Team meetings and resident meetings took place, however everyone we spoke with told us they had not attended a resident meeting. Feedback was gathered from people who used the service and their families.
We saw all notifications with the exception of one had been sent to CQC. We discussed this with the registered manager after our inspection and spoke to the senior care staff at the time of the inspection.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of this report.