Background to this inspection
Updated
25 January 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 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.
This was a comprehensive inspection. It was unannounced and took place on the 8 and 9 January 2019. The inspection team included one inspector on both days plus an expert by experience on the second day. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
We used information the registered manager sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Prior to the inspection we looked at the PIR and all the information we had collected about the service. This included previous inspection reports, information received and notifications the service had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.
We spoke with the registered manager and the deputy manager. We also spoke with 10 people living at the service, one visiting relative and eight care workers. As part of the inspection we sought feedback from eight community professionals and received responses from three.
We looked at four people's care plans, daily notes, monitoring records and medicine administration sheets. We saw staff recruitment files for the five staff members who had been employed since our last inspection. We reviewed a number of other documents relating to the management of the service. For example, staff training records, staff supervision and appraisal log, premises safety records, legionella and fire risk assessments, staff meeting minutes and various audits.
Updated
25 January 2019
Abbeyfield Reading Society Limited is a care home without nursing that provides a service to up to 28 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at the service. Accommodation is provided over three floors and all rooms have en suite facilities.
At our last inspection in July 2018 we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated any 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.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good.
The service continued to meet all the fundamental standards and had a registered manager as required. The registered manager was present and assisted us with the inspection.
People were protected from the risks of abuse. Risks were identified and managed effectively to protect people from avoidable harm. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure, as far as possible, that people were protected from staff being employed who were not suitable. Medicines were handled correctly and safely.
People received effective care and support from staff who knew them well and were trained and supervised. We have made a recommendation related to reviewing the ongoing staff training at the service.
People received care and support which was personalised to meet their individual needs. They knew how to complain and staff knew the process to follow if they had concerns.
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's right to make their own decisions were protected.
People benefitted from a service which had an open and inclusive culture. Staff were happy working at the service and people benefitted from having staff who felt well managed and supported.
People were treated with care and kindness and their right to confidentiality was protected. People's diversity needs were identified and incorporated into their care plans where applicable. People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld.
Further information is in the detailed findings in the full report.