Archived: Abbey Court

Updated 14 April 2016

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.

This inspection took place on the 8 and 9 March 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because it was believed the provider offered a domiciliary care service at the location and we needed to be sure that people and staff would be available to be spoken with. The inspection was completed by two adult social care inspectors. A Provider Information Return (PIR) was not requested prior to the inspection due to a change in inspection date. A PIR 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.

Before this inspection we looked at the previous reports and notifications received by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A notification is information about important events which the agency is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we visited eight people in their homes, spoke with one relative, the registered manager, the manager, one member of senior staff, three staff and the provider’s Quality and Assurance Officer. We reviewed seven people’s care plans and six people’s medicines administration records (MARS). We reviewed five staff recruitment files, the induction process for new staff, training and supervision records and quality assurance audits. We also looked at the provider’s policies and procedures, maintenance records, staff rota for the 1 February 2016 to the 28 February 2016, complaints records and written compliments. During the inspection we spent time observing staff interactions with people including a lunch time sitting.

Following the inspection we spoke with another relative.

This location was last inspected in August 2013 where no concerns were raised.

Updated 14 April 2016

This inspection was announced and took place on the 8 and 9 March 2016.

Abbey Court is an extra care housing service situated within a purpose built residential block of flats located on the outskirts of Basingstoke town centre. Abbey Court is comprised of two floors containing individual flats. Communal areas include seating in corridor areas, a library, foyer, library, a movie watching area and a large newly refurbished restaurant on the ground floor.

An extra care housing service is where people are provided with personalised care and support in their own home situated within a residential block of flats. People who receive this care service include those living with dementia, people with medical conditions including diabetes and those living with sight and hearing impairments. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to 36 people. Care was being provided by care and support workers who will be referred to as staff throughout this report.

Abbey Court 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.

People using the service told us they felt safe. Staff understood and followed guidance to enable them to recognise and address any safeguarding concerns about people.

People’s safety was promoted because risks that may cause them harm in their own home had been identified and managed safely. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to keep people safe.

Recruitment procedures were completed to ensure people were protected from the employment of unsuitable staff. New staff induction training was followed by a period of time working with experienced colleagues. This ensured staff had the skills and confidence required to support people safely. There were sufficient staff employed to ensure that people’s individual needs were met.

Contingency plans were in place, known by staff and evidenced in their practice to ensure the safe delivery of care in the event of adverse situations such as a fire. Fire drills were documented and understood by staff to ensure people were kept safe. The registered manager and other managerial staff were also qualified to be deployed to deliver care if staff were ill and unable to work.

People were protected from unsafe administration of their medicines because staff were trained effectively. Staff had completed mandatory training to ensure they could prompt people to take their medicines where required and where they administered people’s medicines this was carried out safely. Advice was provided to people from staff to inform them of the safe storage, disposal and obtaining of medicines stored in their own homes. Staff skills in medicines administration were reviewed on a regular basis by the manager to ensure they remained competent.

People were supported by staff to make their own decisions. Staff were knowledgeable about the actions to take to ensure they met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The manager identified they would work with health care professionals when required to assess people’s capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. Staff sought people’s consent before delivering their care and support.

Where required people were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People were encouraged to participate in the lunchtime meal that was provided by the restaurant situated on the ground floor. People told us they were able to choose their meals and enjoyed what was provided.

People’s health needs were met to maintain their safety and welfare. Staff and the manager promptly engaged with other healthcare agencies and professionals to ensure people’s identified health care needs were met.

Staff demonstrated they knew and understood the needs of the people they were supporting. People told us they were happy with the care provided. The registered manager and staff were able to identify and discuss the importance of maintaining people’s respect and privacy at all times. People were encouraged and supported by staff to make choices about their care including how and what care they required.

People had care plans which were personalised to their needs and wishes. They contained detailed information to assist staff to provide care in a manner that respected each person’s individual requirements and promoted treating people with dignity. Relatives told us and records showed that they were encouraged to be involved at the care planning stage, during regular reviews and when their family members’ health needs changed.

People knew how to complain and told us they would do so if required. Procedures were in place for the registered manager to monitor, investigate and respond to complaints in an effective way. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of the service during regular care plan reviews, staff spot checks and quality assurance questionnaires.

The provider’s values included the right for people to experience privacy and dignity in their care delivery and to promote people’s independence. Staff were knowledgeable about how they were expected to deliver care and staff demonstrated these principles. People told us these standards were evidenced in the way that care was delivered.

The registered manager, other managerial staff and staff promoted a culture which focused on providing individual person centred care. People were encouraged to raise concerns with staff, the registered manager and the provider.

The registered manager provided positive leadership which instilled confidence in staff and people using the service. The registered manager had informed the CQC of notifiable incidents which occurred at the service, allowing the CQC to monitor that appropriate action was taken to keep people safe.

People and relatives told us the service had a confident registered manager and managerial staff and staff told us they felt supported by senior staff, registered manager and other managerial staff.

The provider carried out regular quality monitoring to assess the quality of the service being delivered.