Archived: Abbeyfield Parkdale

We found the following examples of good practice.

• Visiting policies were in place and these were shared with relatives via email and on entry to the home. Visitors were required to wear PPE in line with current guidance, use hand sanitiser, undergo temperature checks and complete a Covid-19 screening questionnaire before they were granted access.

• People were supported to communicate with their families through video calling including participating in interactive quizzes with their relatives and exchanging letters and photographs. Scrap books were being created for each resident to share information with their relatives regarding the activities they had engaged in whilst the home had been closed to visitors.

• People were supported by staff who wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with current guidance.

• Staff were fully trained regarding infection prevention and control and the registered manager undertook regular competency checks to ensure compliance.

• People's additional sensory needs caused by staff wearing PPE was understood by staff. Staff supported one person with a hearing impairment who usually lip reads by using flash cards.

• Where people had cognitive impairments, mental capacity assessments to determine whether they could make an informed decision regarding testing for Covid-19 were undertaken. Where people were assessed as lacking capacity, a decision was made in their best interests.

• Daily cleaning schedules were in place that complied with current guidance and these were followed. Thorough infection control audits identified any actions and these were addressed where needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Abbeyfield Parkdale is a residential home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 30 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 16 people living at the service, many of whom were living with dementia.

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

Quality assurance tools had not consistently identified where people's care files did not contain complete and up to date information.

People were supported by safely recruited and trained staff. There were enough staff to meet people's needs and offer people time and reassurance. People were supported in a kind and compassionate way by staff who promoted their independence. People's confidentiality was understood and respected by staff.

People received their medicines safely as prescribed and people were supported to access health professionals as they required.

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 were supported to eat and drink in line with their needs and choices. People had access to a range of activities both inside and outside of the home. The home had good links with the local community.

People's needs and preferences were recorded in personalised care plans which were reviewed with people and their relatives as they wished.

People were encouraged to give feedback about their care and felt able to speak to the registered manager. People and their relatives were involved in developments about the service.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to maintain quality at the service and was working with other professionals to continue to implement and sustain improvements where these were required.

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 21 June 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.

Abbeyfield Parkdale is a residential home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 30 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 27 people living at the service, many of whom were living with dementia. 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 were protected by a staff team who understood how to recognise signs of potential abuse and how to report those concerns. People were protected from risk such as reoccurring accidents. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of care staff who had been recruited safely for their roles. People were cared for by staff who had the skills required to support them effectively.

People were enabled to consent to the support they received. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions about or consent to their own care, the registered manager was using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions in their best interests. People were supported to receive sufficient amounts of food and drink. Any special dietary requirements people had were met. People were supported to maintain their day to day health.

People were supported by a care staff team who were kind and caring towards them. People were enabled to make choices and to maintain their independence. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and protected by care staff. People were also supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them.

People received care and support that met their needs. People’s changing needs were communicated by care staff through handover meetings. People were involved in activities and leisure opportunities. People felt able to raise a complaint where this was required and their concerns were addressed.

People were not always protected by effective quality assurance systems that identified areas of risk and improvement needed within the service. Records were not always accurately maintained and updated when required.

People felt the service was well-led and they were involved in sharing their views and making changes within the service. They were supported by a staff team who were motivated in their roles and felt well supported by managers.

We spoke with five people who lived at the home. We observed how care was provided to people, looked at three people's records and spoke with four staff and the deputy manager.

People told us they were asked for their consent in respect of daily routines. We saw staff gained consent from people who were not able to express their views through observation of their reactions.

People we spoke with expressed overall satisfaction with the care they received. One person said, 'There is not one staff that is not kindness itself'.

People told us they had a choice of meals and were always offered alternatives if they did not want what was on the menu. We saw people that needed help to eat were assisted in accordance with assessments carried out by external health professionals.

People told us they felt safe at the home. One person told us, 'I do feel safe and well looked after'.

We saw the provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of service.