Abbeyfield Grove House - DCA

Updated 4 August 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 inspection took place on 5, 6 and 10 July 2018 and was announced. We gave short notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector on 5 and 6 July 2018 and one adult social care inspector and an assistant adult social care inspector on 10 July 2018.

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications we had received from the provider. A notification is information about important events that the registered provider is legally required to send us, for example if someone using the service sustains a serious injury. We also spoke with the local authority contracts and safeguarding teams.

We usually request the provider completes a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a document we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. On this occasion we had not requested the return of a PIR prior to the commencement of the inspection.

During our inspection, we spent time looking at records, which included four people’s care records, three staff recruitment files and records relating to the management of the service. We also spoke with eight people who used the service, six care staff, the registered manager, the provider’s head of care services, the provider’s chief executive officer and the provider’s quality manager.

Updated 4 August 2018

This inspection took place on 5, 6 and 10 July 2018 and was announced.

Abbeyfield Grove House Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care to people living in their own apartments within the Abbeyfield Independent Living with Extra Care complex. The agency is part of an integrated care scheme providing supported living for people aged 55 and above and operates a 24-hour service. Not everyone using the agency receives regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

On the first day of our inspection, the service was supporting 24 people to live in their own apartments within the complex although one person had moved to a residential care setting on the final day of our inspection.

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.

At our last inspection in April 2017, we found shortfalls in the safe management of medicines and the service was in breach of Regulations. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question of ‘is the service safe?’ to at least good. At this inspection, we saw improvements had been made which meant the service was no longer in breach of Regulations.

Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to ensure all care visits were made, with staff staying the required length of time and completing required tasks. Staff received appropriate training and they told us the training was good and relevant to their role. Staff were supported by the registered manager and received formal supervision where they could discuss their ongoing development needs.

People who used the service and their relatives told us staff were helpful, attentive and caring. We saw people were treated with respect and compassion.

Care plans were up to date and detailed what care and support people wanted and needed at each care visit. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate any risks which had been identified. People felt safe and appropriate referrals were made to the safeguarding team when necessary.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s healthcare needs were being met and medicines were stored and managed safely.

Staff knew about people’s dietary needs and preferences. People were encouraged to consume a healthy diet and were provided with plenty of drinks and snacks in between meals.

Activities were on offer to keep people occupied both within the community hub, shared with the provider’s adjoining residential service, and the wider community.

The complaints procedure was displayed. Records showed complaints received had been dealt with appropriately although more information was needed to evidence outcomes.

Everyone spoke highly of the registered manager and said they were approachable and supportive. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and where issues were identified they acted to make improvements.

We found all the fundamental standards were being met. Further information is in the detailed findings below.