Abbey Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

There were inconsistencies and lack of clear guidance for staff in people’s assessments. There was a lack of information in people’s care records to show people who lacked capacity had been supported to make specific decisions about their care and the principles of Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not always been followed.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives told us their family’s needs were assessed when they were admitted to the service. One relative said, “The family has had input to [Name’s] care plan and we’re kept informed of any changes.”

During our assessment we reviewed 9 care plans and found inconsistencies that could impact on people’s care in all the care plans we viewed. The inconsistences ranged from contradictions and a lack of information about people’s medical needs. There was also a lack of consistent guidance on what support people needed to manage their hydration needs. In addition, there was a lack of clear information on the safe management of people’s mobility needs and risk of falls, management of people’s nutritional needs and management of people's skin integrity. This lack of clear and consistent information put people at risk of receiving care that did not meet their needs. We fed this back to the provider who responded to our concerns. They told us they had been aware the information in people’s care plans needed to be reviewed and they were working to address this. Following our visit the home manager put together an action plan to ensure all the issues we raised were addressed.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People were informed about their care, were able to make choices such as what to wear, where they sat, what meals they wanted, and were not restricted. One person said, “I’m helped to get washed and dressed and I can have a shower when I want.”

Staff we spoke with showed good knowledge of their responsibilities in ensuring people were supported to make their own decisions and gave examples of how they achieved this when people struggled to make their needs known. Staff talked about using visual aids and closed questions when offering choice to people.

As noted earlier in this report, people’s care records lacked information to show when they had been supported to make specific decisions about their care and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not always been followed. For example, one person’s care plan had stated the person lacked capacity to make decisions about their care. However, in one section of their care plan it was noted that following a conversation between the person and staff a crash mat had been removed from their bedroom and replaced with a sensor mat. There was no record of who had undertaken the conversation or if there had been a thorough assessment to ensure the action was both safe and in the person’s best interest.