Abbey Village

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Staff told us they understood their role in ensuring people’s diverse needs were identified and respected, so people could have equity of access to opportunities and positive outcomes. However, we received mixed feedback from people and relatives, indicating not everyone felt staff consistently listened to people’s individual needs and preferences, and tailored their support accordingly.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Not everyone felt staff were proactive enough in listening to them and tailoring their support accordingly. One person told us, “No-one listens to me. They don’t and haven't got the time to get to know me... I also worry for the other people that are not able to tell staff how they are.” Two people and a relative felt activities were more tailored to the interests of women. The provider introduced additional activities in response to this feedback, which they hoped would have broader appeal. There were some organised activities available at the home, but we noted there was inequity in the support available to people, as we observed those who chose not to join group activities were left unattended and had limited stimulation or refreshments on the afternoon of one of our visits. People did not always feel involved in the development of their care plan or decisions about their care. One person told us, ‘No I haven't seen it (care plan). I am getting happier with the support but at first it was horrible and it is getting better slowly.” People told us decisions were sometimes announced at ‘resident forums’ without getting people’s views or consideration of how this may impact on their individual health needs. For instance, changes to mealtimes.

Staff told us they had not observed any forms of discrimination and would report this if they had any concerns of this nature. Staff told us there was nobody using the service at present with any specific religious or cultural needs, but if there was, they would ensure these needs and wishes were respected. Staff felt people’s beliefs and wishes in relation to their food were met. The registered manager told us all people were given a ‘service user guide’, and if anyone needed this in an alternative format or someone to read it for them, they could facilitate this. They said the guide included information about the home and the services on offer.

People were able to join meetings and share their views, but there was limited evidence to show how this feedback was acted on. The registered manager said a satisfaction survey had been issued, but responses had not yet been received at the time of our inspection. There was no evidence of previous surveys available. Staff could access equality, diversity and human rights training, but some staff had gaps in their training records. Care plans included information about people’s personal beliefs and protected characteristics, as identified in the Equality Act 2010. However, care plans were not always developed in a timely way on people’s admission to the home, so this needed to be done more promptly to make sure access to information about people’s beliefs and preferences was consistently available.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.