Heron House Residential Home

About the service

Abbeyfield (Somerset) Society is a residential care home. The home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation to up to 44 people. The home specialises in the care of older people, including people living with dementia.

The building is split into three main areas. The main part of the home has 19 en-suite rooms and 8 self-contained apartments. There is also a 13 bedded area, called Quantock, which provides care to people who are living with dementia.

At the time of the inspection 38 people were living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People lived in a home where the provider and registered manager were passionate about providing high quality person-centred care. The ethos of respecting people’s views and wishes was embedded into the culture of the home.

Staff were inventive in seeking people’s views. This included holding a fashion show for people to choose staff uniforms. They also held a competition to name the newly opened bar.

There was a dedicated activities team who oversaw an outstanding activity programme. People had opportunities to continue their hobbies and interests and were supported to do so.

People and their relatives were very complimentary about how activities had been adapted during the pandemic to minimise the risks of loneliness and isolation.

The activity programme was based on people’s interests and was inclusive and empowering. People were able to continue to use their skills and were valued members of their community.

The provider and registered manager continually strived to make improvements in accordance with people’s wishes and needs. They worked with other professionals and used evidence-based practice to ensure they kept up to date with legislation and best practice.

There were excellent systems to monitor the quality of care including the use of outside consultants. When these systems identified shortfalls, robust action had been taken to ensure ongoing improvements. Lessons learnt were shared with staff and people to make sure everyone was involved.

People benefitted from a registered manager who encouraged and welcomed positive and negative feedback. Their motto was ‘Feedback is a gift.’ People felt able to discuss any issues with staff and the management. This all helped to promote an open and learning culture.

People’s relatives praised the management of the home and culture they had promoted. People appreciated the openness and transparency of the management.

The staff were very responsive to people’s needs and preferences providing different care for people’s different needs and wishes. This was demonstrated in the varied décor styles and atmospheres of different areas of the home.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and experience to meet their needs. Bespoke staff training was provided to make sure staff could effectively support people with specialist needs, such as people who were living with dementia.

People were happy and relaxed at the home and with staff who supported them. People felt included and said they felt ‘at home.’

People could be assured that at the end of their life they and their families and friends would receive high quality kind and compassionate care. Staff worked with other professionals to enhance their skills in this area and promote comfort and dignity for people.

People felt able to continue to follow their own routines and make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection. The last rating for the service was good (published 1 November 2019.)

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service and the length of time since the last rating.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

This was a focused inspection looking at the key questions of effective, responsive and well led only.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

The overall rating for the service has changed from good to outstanding based on the findings of this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Abbeyfield (Somerset) Society on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

One part of the home, Quantock, provides care for people living with dementia, the main part of the home provides care to older people with personal care needs and there are apartments for people who wish to live a more independent lifestyle within the safety and security of the care home. At the time of the inspection 31 people were living at the home.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff were following good infection prevention and control measures to minimise risks to people. There were regular audits and competency checks to make sure good practice was fully understood and followed by staff.

There were various ways for people to see and keep in touch with friends and family. The home had a variety of safe visiting areas and staff were supporting people with video and phone calls.

Where there were specific concerns about a person the registered manager had arranged for a family member to be an essential carer to enable them to visit more regularly. This had proved very beneficial to the person. The essential carer told us they had completed training in infection prevention and control and wearing personal protective equipment. They were also part of the home’s testing regime.

People continued to have access to a variety of activities and entertainment. This included daily activities, celebrating special events and drives out in the home’s minibus.

Staff felt very well supported by the management team and told us they felt safe working at the home. Staff we spoke with praised the registered manager for how well they kept people, families and staff up to date with what was happening in the home and any changes that had needed to be made.

Abbeyfield (Somerset) Society is a care home which is registered to provide care and accommodation to up to 44 people. The home is able to provide care for older people with a variety of needs.

One part of the home, Quantock, provides care for people living with dementia, the main part of the home provides care to older people with personal care needs and there are six apartments for people who wish to live a more independent lifestyle within the safety and security of the care home. At the time of the inspection 41 people were living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People lived in a home which was extremely responsive to their needs and wishes. Staff respected people’s individuality, their values and beliefs and provided care and support in a way that reflected these. People were able to follow their own routines and staff respected these.

There was an emphasis on ensuring people continued to live a full a life as possible. There were ample opportunities for people to continue to pursue their own interests and hobbies and take part in a wide range of social activities and events. When people suggested activities they would like to take part in, staff went out of their way to make things happen for people.

People were able to take part in activities in the local area to make sure they continued to be valued members of their community. People were encouraged to keep in touch with friends and family. Visitors, including religious representatives, were always made welcome at the home. The staff were innovative and used their community links to help people to understand technology to maintain social relationships and for care planning.

People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. The provider had systems which ensured there were adequate numbers of staff to keep people safe and to meet their varied needs. Staff were well trained to meet people’s individual needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received their care and support from staff who were kind and caring. Staff knew people well and people had formed trusting and affectionate relationships with staff and other people at the home. People or their representatives were fully involved in planning their care and in the running of the home.

The home was well led by the provider, a registered manager and experienced management team. People could be confident with the systems in place to monitor standards of care, respond to concerns and plan on-going improvements.

Staff were well supported and highly motivated. This led to a happy and inclusive environment for people to live in.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published April 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the time of the inspection there were 34 people living at the home

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People remained safe at the home. There were adequate numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and to spend time socialising with them. One person said “There’s enough of them [staff] to keep us all entertained and amused.” Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely.

Improvements had been made to ensure people received receive effective care. 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. Staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. People told us their healthcare needs were met and staff supported them to attend appointments.

The home continued to provide a caring service to people. People told us, and we observed, that staff were kind and patient. One person commented “They [staff] are unfailingly kind and courteous.” People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support they received.

The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. There was an excellent programme of activities which made sure people could continue with their hobbies and interests. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to.

The service continued to be well led. People told us the management within the home were open and approachable. The registered manager and provider continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements in accordance with people’s changing needs. People lived in a happy environment because staff morale was good.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

People we spoke to were happy with the service provided. One person told us "It couldn't be better". Another person told us "I am very happy here, the staff are friendly and there is a nice atmosphere".

We saw evidence that staff training was comprehensive and up to date. The staff we spoke to demonstrated that they were familiar with systems in place to recognise and report abuse and felt confident to do so.

All the staff we spoke to were happy in their work, one member of staff told us "When I wake up, I want to go to work". The enthusiasm of the staff was reflected in their commitment to provide a stimulating environment for people with numerous activities and social events.

Meals provided at the home were of a high standard, offering a wide variety which were appetising and nutritionally balanced. People told us "The food is smashing and there is always plenty to eat".

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the service of provision. These systems allowed for continuous improvement of the service through regular audit and gathering views from residents, relatives and staff.

We observed that people were able to choose how and where they spent their time. We noted that some people spent time in communal areas and some preferred to occupy themselves in their personal rooms. We saw that staff knocked on bedroom doors before entering which showed that they respected people's privacy.

People said that they had been involved in writing their care plan. We were told 'they ask you how you would like things done and they write it all down so everyone knows.'

Everyone we asked said that they were happy with the care that they received. Comments included 'the care is good,' 'I am well looked after' and 'I couldn't wish for better care.'

All areas of the home that we saw were clean and fresh.

We looked at the recruitment files of the three most recently appointed members of staff. These files demonstrated that the home had a robust recruitment procedure which minimised the risks of abuse to people who lived at the home.

People who were able to express an opinion said that they would be able to speak with a member of staff if they were unhappy about the service they received.