The Abbeyfield East London Extra Care Society Limited

Updated 10 December 2020

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.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the ICP practice was safe and the service was compliant with ICP measures.

This inspection took place on 27 November 2020 and was announced. W telephoned the provider half an hour before visiting the service.

Updated 10 December 2020

The Abbeyfield East London Extra Care Society Limited is also known as George Brooker House. We carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 26 November 2018. George Brooker House provides accommodation for up to 44 adults including people who may have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection 44 people were living at the service.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. This service provides personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service has a registered manager 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.

At our last inspection on 30 March 2016 the service was rated ‘Good'. At this inspection we found that this service continued to be ‘Good.’

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff had a clear understanding of what abuse was and what to do if they had any safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments were in place and gave details about how to support people in a safe way. Staff were recruited safely, and pre-employment checks had been carried out to ensure they were suitable to support people. Staffing levels were sufficient, so the service could meet people's needs. Medicines were administered and managed safely. Infection control was being managed in a safe way to prevent the spread of infection. Accidents and incidents were recorded and the service learnt lessons to ensure the care provided was safe.

Once employed, staff received a detailed induction to the service and ongoing training to allow them to provide the best support to people. Staff felt supported and received regular supervisions and an annual appraisal to review their practice. The service had completed pre-admission assessments for all people to ensure their needs could be met. People had a choice around their meals and the service worked well with other health and social care teams to ensure people were supported to stay healthy and well. The service had been designed and adapted with people’s support needs in mind. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA is a law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to their care and support, the appropriate applications had been made.

Staff were observed to be kind and respectful and knew how to communicate with people and recognise their needs. Staff demonstrated an understanding around equality and diversity; however, information about relationships and sexuality was not discussed. We recommended the service follows best practice guidance to ensure people felt safe and comfortable. People and their relatives were fully involved in their care and support provided. Staff spoke to us about how they maintained people's privacy and dignity and the service promoted people to be as independent as possible.

People received personalised support that was responsive to their individual needs and each person had an up to date care plan. People were encouraged to engage in activities of their choice, both within the service and the local community. People and their relatives felt comfortable raising any issues they might have about the care provided and there were systems in place to deal with complaints. The service provided end of life care that took into consideration individual wishes.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and felt they were approachable and supportive. The service gathered feedback from people, relatives and staff. This feedback alongside the audits and quality checks meant the service was always monitoring and improving the quality of care provided.