Archived: Abbeyfield Bognor Regis Society Limited

There was 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 told us they felt safe with staff. Relatives had no concerns about the safety of people. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults and staff knew what action to take if they thought anyone was at risk of potential harm.

Thorough recruitment processes were in place for newly appointed staff to check they were suitable to work with people. Staffing numbers were maintained at a level to meet people’s needs safely. Medicines were managed safely.

Staff received regular training and there were opportunities for them to study for additional qualifications. All staff training was up-to-date. Team meetings were held and staff had regular communication with each other at handover meetings which took place between each shift.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found the registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. We found the provider to be meeting the requirements of DoLS. The registered manager and staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) regarding best interests decisions should anyone be deemed to lack capacity.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy diet. They had access to healthcare professionals. People’s rooms were decorated in line with their personal preferences.

Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and were involved in decisions about their care as much as they were able. The decisions made by people were respected by staff. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted. Staff understood how to care for people in a sensitive way.

Care plans provided information about people in a person-centred way. People’s preferences and likes and dislikes were documented so that staff knew how people wished to be supported. There were a variety of activities and outings on offer which people could choose to do. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s policy.

The registered manager operated an open door policy and welcomed feedback on any aspect of the service. There was a stable staff team who said that communication in the home was good and they always felt able to make suggestions. They confirmed management were open and approachable.

There was a clear complaints policy and people knew how to make a complaint if necessary.

The provider had a policy and procedure for quality assurance. The registered manager worked alongside staff and this enabled her to monitor staff performance. The Nominated Individual for the provider visited the home regularly to carry out quality audits.

Weekly and monthly checks were carried out to monitor the quality of the service provided. There were regular meetings with people, relatives and staff enabling feedback to be sought on the quality of the service provided. People and staff were able to influence the running of the service and make comments and suggestions about any changes. These meetings enabled the registered manager and provider to monitor if people’s needs were being met.

We found that there was supported living accommodation connected to the care home. The supported living service was not part of our inspection but we noted that people shared some of the facilities in each such as the lounge areas and could access both buildings freely.

We considered our inspection findings to answer the questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their friends, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Care records contained information on people's backgrounds, needs and information for staff on how to meet them and their preferred routines.

We saw that potential risks to people were appropriately assessed and planned for. The service routinely screened for risks associated with mobility, falls, medication and well-being. There were instructions for staff on how to reduce risks to people in these care areas.

We found staff were knowledgeable about people's individuals needs and preferences were respectful of people's privacy and dignity and encouraged people to maintain their independence.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We found that medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely in line with the provider's written policy.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. We looked at staff records and found that appropriate checks were taken before staff began work. We saw that staff had to complete an induction period and an induction workbook in order to demonstrate their competence. Staff told us that their practice was observed prior to being allowed to work alone in order to demonstrate competence.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and that people were protected. The provider had taken steps to ensure that staff were honest, reliable, trustworthy and treated people who used services with respect. We found the provider had taken appropriate steps to ensure that staff were qualified and competent to carry out their role and meet the needs of people who used the service. The Manager demonstrated that they knew the correct procedures if they found any staff were identified as no longer fit work in health or social care.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted the manager demonstrated knowledge of their responsibilities in respect of this.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in the writing of their care plans.

Specialist needs such as dietary needs and pressure care had been identified in care plans where required. We saw that people received visits from health professionals including the district nurse and general practitioners and that the reason for the visit was recorded.

People told us that they were happy with the care and support provided. One person told us, 'They couldn't do better; they treat you as friends but really look after your medical needs'.

People told us that their visitors were made to feel welcome and that they were supported to attend appointments they needed to.

One person told us, 'I have recommended it to other people'

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. Staff were seen to be supportive in a manner that was individual to the person's needs, respectful and maintained people's dignity, privacy and independence.

People told us, "The staff are very good, I'm very happy here' Another person told us, 'I can't fault it in any way, the nurses are more like friends. I ring a bell and they're right here'.

All of the people we spoke with told us they valued the friendly attitude that staff showed toward them. One person told us, 'They all make a point of talking. It makes you feel like you still count for something and I appreciate that.'

Is the service responsive?

We saw there were a range of activities on offer for people and that they took place on a regular basis. People were provided with a list of the month's activities and we saw that for April 2014 this included lent study, communion, exercise classes and poetry reading. One person told us, 'There's quite a lot going on'.

We found that regular residents meetings took place and were well attended by people who used the service and their relatives. Two members of the providers's management committee attended and met with people prior to the meeting. We found that changes had been undertaken as a result of feedback. We saw that an annual general meeting was to take place after our visit and people told us that they planned to attend.

Is the service well-led?

People told us that they were happy with the way the service was run. One person told us,'It is very well run, the staff are all so obliging and that emanates from the top'.

Staff told us that they were happy working at the service they told us, 'If I have a problem, I just ask the Manager and it is dealt with there and then'.

We saw that the service had a quality assurance system in place and for gaining feedback on the quality of service they provided. We saw there were residents meetings and that a survey had been carried in order to gain feedback on how the service was performing. The provider undertook regular health and safety audits in order to identify assess and manage risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of people who used the service.

Everyone told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us, "I am happy here, the staff are so nice. I couldn't wish for anything better".

Another person said, "They always knock on my door before they come in, they are always happy to oblige me whatever I ask for. If I need anything I just ring my bell".

People also told us that staff treated them with respect and promoted their privacy. They told us that they felt safe from harm living at the home and that they would be listened to if they raised any concerns. Our evidence gathered during this inspection supported the comments made by people who were receiving a service.