Archived: The Abbeys

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, relatives, and the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were protected from the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. The service had a procedure in place which assisted in the administration of medicines which were given on an as required basis. We saw plans were in place to offer staff guidance as to when this medication was required.

Is the service effective?

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

We saw the registered manager had a schedule of supervisions and staff appraisals for the coming year. We saw that staff had received supervision since our last inspection.

Is the service well led?

People who used the service and their representatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment. We saw that a relatives and residents meeting had taken place since our last visit and the outcome of the inspection was openly discussed.

We saw that audits took place and highlighted areas of improvement were acted on.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, relatives, and the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that people were not protected from the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We saw that some medication was not recorded on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and eye ointments and drops were being used past the time recommended by the manufacturer.

We saw staff used moving and handling equipment safely and ensured they engaged with people so that they understood why they were being transferred using equipment.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw care records were in place which contained care plans that met the persons assessed needs. We saw that care plans had been regularly reviewed to ensure they met the person's current needs.

People were cared for by staff who understood their needs. However, staff were not supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

Is the service caring?

We observed how staff responded to the needs of people who used the service. We saw that they were able to offer support suitable to each individual person. We also saw staff respecting people and offering choices suitable to their needs and in line with their care plans.

Daily events and activity took place but was limited. An activity co-ordinator was employed to work at the service. On the day of our visit we saw that bingo took place on one unit in the morning and in the afternoon on another unit. Some people were happy to spend time in their rooms watching television or reading.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. We spoke with people who used the service and they told us that staff explained their care package to them and they could voice their opinion.

We saw that people were involved in their care plans and had signed a form to agree to being involved. Some people knew what was written about them and they felt able to comment on their care plans.

Is the service well-led?

People who used the service and their representatives were not asked for their views about their care and treatment. We spoke with people who used the service who told us that resident and relative meetings did not take place. We asked people if they ever received a questionnaire to complete, asking them for their views about the home. People told us that they had not received any. We asked the manager how they knew the opinions of people and were told that they go to the office to speak with her. This meant that opportunities for people to feedback their views about the service were very limited.

Audits in relation to the management of medicines had not identified errors in the recording of some medications administered to people who used the service. Other audit highlighted some concerns, but these were not followed up.

We inspected the service on 17 February 2014 and found the provider to be compliant.

We also carried out this inspection because we had concerns raised regarding the care and welfare of the people who used the service. We spoke with people who used the service and their relatives and they told us that they were happy with the care at The Abbeys. However people did comment that there were no activities taking place. One person said, 'I'm bored stiff, there's nothing to do but watch the television.' Another person said, 'I enjoy spending time in my room.'

We found that two heads of care had been appointed recently and worked day and night shifts. They had the responsibility of overseeing the shift and worked supernumerary to the staff on duty. This meant that carers and nurses could concentrate on care needs and the head of care completed care plan documentation and co-ordinated the shift.

We used a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We inspected the service on 2 December 2013 and found the provider to be compliant with this outcome. We spoke with relatives of people who used the service and were told that they felt their family member was well cared for. Another relative said, “I wouldn’t want my relative anywhere else, the staff are nice and I know my relative is well looked after.” We spoke with people who used the service and were told that they liked living at the home.

We found that some people’s care records were not accurate or fit for purpose. We therefore looked at the outcome relating to records.

Before people received care and treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The appropriate procedure was followed where people were not able to give consent.

One person who used the service said, “I prefer to see my own GP rather than the home’s GP so that’s what happens.”

People who used the service had a care plan which was relevant to their individual needs. One person said, “It’s nice here and staff look after you.” Another person said, “I’m treated as a human being with dignity.” However, issues raised within care documentation were not always followed up appropriately.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. One person said, “The food is smashing.” Another person said, “The food is good here.”

People were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment.

We found that the provider had an effective recruitment procedure in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

The provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately. One person said, “I would tell my daughter if anything was wrong.” Another person said, “The new manager seems good. I would feel comfortable in approaching her if anything was wrong.”

We found that people who used the service had a clear care record which identified their individual needs. Care records were person centred and reflected the care being given.