Abberdale Ltd t/a Abberdale House

“The atmosphere in the home was welcoming, and people appeared comfortable in their surroundings. Some people expressed themselves vocally, shouting or singing, and staff responded to this calmly and with patience reflecting their familiarity with the people’s needs. There was clear evidence of warm, genuine relationships between the people and staff. Feedback from relatives was mostly positive, and stakeholders also expressed positive views, indicating people felt well supported. The environment was adapted to meet both general and individual needs. Some environmental concerns were identified during the assessment; however, these were brought to the attention of the registered manager at the time and were addressed promptly.”

“Although monitoring of people’s anxiety and/or distress was in place, staff did not always record the effects or outcomes following incidents, which limited oversight of how interventions were monitored. Medicines were generally managed safely; however, further improvements were needed to ensure protocols were in place when people had medicines prescribed to take to help them to calm when needed.”

“People’s health needs were regularly monitored, and generally action was taken when changes were identified. However, best-interest decisions had not been documented in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, leaving no evidence that decisions made on behalf of people who lacked capacity were lawful or aligned with their best interests. The provider was also operating across 2 systems, which resulted in information not being consistently captured. 1 system indicated medicines were out of stock; however, this was not accurate, highlighting the risks of discrepancies and errors between systems.”

“People told us they felt safe and protected from harm and abuse. Staff had received relevant safeguarding training, and the provider had robust recruitment processes in place to ensure staff were recruited safely.”

“People were supported to maintain their relationships, and their relatives could visit the home at any time they wished.The service offered a range of activities, both within the home and in the community, to support people’s individual interests and ensure people remained connected to the things that mattered to them.”

“Complaints were taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. People and their relatives told us that they felt that if they had a complaint, they could raise it, and action would be taken.”

“Staff responded to people promptly and told us they felt well supported by the leadership team to carry out their roles effectively. Leaders were visible and approachable and had fostered an open and inclusive culture within the service. Staff were actively encouraged to share their views and feedback through a variety of methods, including team meetings, supervision sessions and informal discussions, ensuring that their voices were heard and acted upon.”

“The provider and registered manager were highly responsive throughout the inspection process and demonstrated a proactive approach in taking swift action to address any concerns raised.”

“Overall, experiences of the service were positive. People told us they felt happy and safe living at the home, and this was reflected through our observations throughout the inspection.”

“  ”