Abbots Lawn

People were safe at Abbots Lawn and this was reflected in their comments and feedback. The provider had a proactive approach to learning within the service. When things did go wrong, this was evidence by staff and reviewed by the registered manager so people were kept safe and improvements could be made going forward. Staff had a strong knowledge of safeguarding, how to recognise the signs of potential abuse and reported this appropriately. People were involved in shaping their care plans and this included managing and minimising risks where possible. There was clear guidance available to staff to promote people’s safety without restricting them unnecessarily. The environment was clean and tidy, with regular safety check having taken place, especially around fire safety. There were enough staff of the right skill set to keep people safe and meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke positively about staff and how they were responsive to each need. Medicines were managed safely and delivered in a way which met people’s preferences. The registered manager and provider had good oversight of this so any issues could be identified and addressed rapidly.

People’s needs were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure they could be effectively met. People told us that the care they received was in line with their preferences and staff took the time to get to know them. The provider and registered manager worked in line with legislation and evidence-based practice to ensure good practice was followed by staff. For example, they used tools such as Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) to monitor people’s nutrition and hydration. People were supported to live healthy lifestyles and were able to access external healthcare professionals such as the GP when needed. Staff were observed to consistently ask people for their consent when offering support throughout the day. Consent was respected and if a person declined support, staff would return later to ask whether they had changed their mind. Staff worked well as a team and with other professionals to ensure the best outcomes for people.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. They knew people well and were able to use this knowledge to ensure people had choice and control over their lives. Where safe to do so, people’s independence was encouraged as much as possible. People were treated as individuals and care was delivered in line with their needs and preferences. People and their relatives were given regular opportunities to feedback on their care so it could be shaped in regard to what was important to them. The provider had a strong ethos of promote well-being of both people who used the service and staff.

People were at the centre of their own care, and it was shaped around their needs and wishes. People spoke positively about staff and how they responded proactively to anything they needed. People felt listened to and knew how to raise a complaint if they needed to. The provider had a robust complaints procedure in place and any concerns had been responded to appropriately. They also kept oversight of any concerns in order to develop learning for staff where needed. People and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback and this was used to make improvements within the service. Staff had undertaken training in diversity and inclusion, they respected people’s individuality and supported them to overcome any barriers they may face when accessing services.

The service was well-led. The provider and registered manager had a number of quality assurance checks in place which were undertaken regularly and effective in identifying any areas of development. These checks had then been used to create an action plan to drive improvement at the service. There was an open culture at the home and staff spoke positively about the level of support they receive from the registered manager and provider. They were regularly given the opportunity to share feedback or ideas to influence how the service was run. This was also the case for people and their relatives who were asked for their views regularly. The provider had a strong drive to ensure well-being of both people who used the service and the staff working there. There was a robust whistleblowing procedure available should this be needed. Staff worked well with external professionals and the home was an active part of the community. Learning and development was also a priority of the provider and they utilised local relationships to continually improve the service.