Archived: Abbeyfield Shandford

Updated 26 February 2019

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 was 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.

Abbeyfield Shandford is a care home providing personal care to a maximum of 26 older people. The home is a detached building in the town of Budleigh Salterton in the coastal area of East Devon. On the first day of the inspection there were 26 people living at the service.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 18 and 31 January 2019. The first day of the inspection was unannounced; the inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of using, or caring for someone using, this type of service. The second day of the inspection was announced and completed by one adult social care inspector.

We reviewed all information the Care Quality Commission (CQC) held about the service before the inspection. This included all contacts about the home, previous inspection reports and notifications sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law. We also reviewed the 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 met people who lived at the home throughout our visits and spoke with eight people to gain their views about the service. We spent time in communal areas observing staff interactions with people and the care and support delivered to them. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people living with dementia.

We met seventeen staff which included the registered manager, deputy manager, activity person, senior care staff, care staff, domestic supervisor, housekeeping staff, the cook and the administrator. On the second day we met the provider’s business manager.

We looked at two people's care records and four people’s medicine records. We also checked two staff records, meeting minutes and various quality monitoring audits and the service’s policies and procedures. We sought feedback from health and social care professionals who regularly visited the home and received two responses.

Updated 26 February 2019

This comprehensive inspection of Abbeyfield Shandford took place on 18 and 31 January 2019. The inspection was unannounced. This meant that the provider and staff did not know we were coming. The second day of the inspection was announced.

Abbeyfield Shandford is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 26 people.

In September 2017 the provider increased the occupancy at the service from 25 to 26.

Abbeyfield Shandford is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. We regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is a large detached house in the East Devon seaside town of Budleigh Salterton and is within walking distance of the towns amenities.

At our last inspection in July 2016 we rated the service Good. Although we rated the Effective domain as requires improvement because not all staff had received regular training and supervision. At this inspection we found the service was good in all domains as staff training needs had been met and supervisions was being provided regularly. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good.

The service was well led by the registered manager. The culture was open and promoted person centred values. People, relatives and staff views were sought and taken into account in how the service was run. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided. The registered manager made continuous changes and improvements in response to their findings.

People remained safe at the service. People said they felt safe and cared for in the home. There were sufficient and suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Thorough recruitment checks were carried out. New staff received an induction that gave them the skills and confidence to carry out their role and responsibilities effectively. The registered manager had worked with staff to ensure they had completed the necessary training updates. Most staff had completed or were enrolled on higher level health and social care qualifications. Records showed staff were now receiving regular support and supervision.

People were protected because staff knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse and how to report suspected abuse. People’s care needs were assessed before admission to the home and these were reviewed on a regular basis. Risk assessments were undertaken for all people to ensure their individual health needs were identified and met.

People had a varied and nutritious diet. There was designated activity staff members to support people to engage in activities they were interested in, on an individual and group basis.

People knew how to make a complaint if necessary. They said if they had a concern or complaint they would feel happy to raise it with the management team.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to lead a healthy lifestyle and have access to healthcare services. Staff recognised any deterioration in people's health, sought professional advice appropriately and followed it. People received their medicines on time and in a safe way.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.