Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Abi House, Worthing.

Abi House in Worthing is a Rehabilitation (illness/injury) and Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults under 65 yrs and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 24th October 2019

Abi House is managed by Independent Lifestyles Support Services LLP who are also responsible for 1 other location

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-10-24
    Last Published 2017-03-01

Local Authority:

    West Sussex

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

11th January 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 11 January 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Abi House is located Worthing and is registered to provide accommodation for a maximum of seven younger adults living with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, learning disabilities and associated challenges. At the time of inspection five people were using the service.

At the time of our inspection, a new manager had recently started at Abi House although they had worked for the provider for some time. They were making their application to become registered as the manager with CQC. 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. The person referred to in this report as 'the manager' is the person who has applied to CQC to become the registered manager for the service.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse because staff had received the training they needed to recognise and report abuse. Risks associated with everyday living had been identified and managed so that people were protected and staff were aware of what they needed to do to reduce risks. Staff were recruited safely and staffing levels ensured that people were safe and received the care and support that they needed in the way that they preferred. People received their prescribed medicines by staff who had been trained to do so, although the provider had recognised that some improvements were required to the storage and administration of medicines.

Staff were provided with the training they needed to meet peoples specific needs. Staff had regular supervision to reflect on and develop their practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) were understood by staff who ensured that they sought people's consent and did not unlawfully restrict their liberty. People's dietary needs were met and they were supported to eat and drink sufficiently. People had access to a range of health care professionals to meet their healthcare needs.

Staff knew people very well and were kind and sensitive to their needs. Staff were observed providing personalised care and it was evident they clearly understood people's individual needs. Staff ensured people's privacy and dignity was respected and maintained at all times. Where people required additional support staff supported them using appropriate methods of communication for their individual needs.

Where possible, people were involved in the planning and review of their care and support needs. Care plans were person centred and were regularly reviewed. People were encouraged and supported by staff to pursue their interests and hobbies and activities were tailored to people's likes, choices and abilities.

Staff, spoke positively about the manager who was committed to providing a person centred service; ensuring people had a good quality of life. There were systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and people living and working in the service had the opportunity to say how they felt about the home and the service it provided.

10th September 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Our inspection team was made up of one adult social care inspector. We answered our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

We spoke with two people who use the service, the manager, the trainee manager and two support staff.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report

Is the service safe?

All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel safe here."

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistle blowing policy. Staff knew about risk management plans and we found that people were supported in line with those plans. This meant people were cared for in a way that protected them from harm.

Is the service effective?

We saw from the records we looked at that the staff had received the information, training and managerial support they needed to do their job effectively. There were arrangements in place that ensured staff had the most up-to-date information about people's support needs. Support plans we reviewed detailed people’s individual preferences, likes and dislikes. Where individual people displayed behaviour that challenged the service, staff managed the situation appropriately and promoted people’s dignity and respect. This meant that because staff had a good knowledge of each person's care needs and preferences they were able to provide effective support.

Is the service caring?

People told us that they were looked after by kind and caring staff. One person told us, "The staff are very kind." People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

People and family members were asked their views about the service and the provider acted on comments that people made. One person told us, "They always help me." Where support staff had noticed people's changing needs, their support plans were updated to reflect this. We found staff discussed people's care needs with them and their family on a regular basis. Systems were in place to make sure the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service well-led?

We found the provider had a clear complaints procedure and that people who used the service knew how to make a complaint.The provider had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. We found the registered manager checked that risks were managed effectively. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure people received a good quality of care. Staff told us the service was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

8th October 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

At the time of our inspection there were three people who lived at Abi House. One person spoke with us about their experiences and told us the home was "Nice" and that staff were kind and helpful. They told us they got along with staff and other people who lived at the home. As other people were unable to speak with us, we used other methods to obtain information about their care and experiences. This included speaking with staff, speaking with social workers, reviewing care records and observing staff interactions with people.

We spoke with four staff who spoke confidently about people, their needs and how they communicated. Staff said their observations influenced people's care plans. We observed staff interacting and communicating with people with words and gestures that people could understand. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found that staff supported people's choices through verbal and non-verbal methods of communication. People's consent was obtained and their choices upheld. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, appropriate arrangements were in place to protect their rights.

We found that staff had received appropriate training and support to manage the new client group at the home. Staff told us they felt supported and had good access to training.

An effective complaints procedure was in place and staff took this form of feedback seriously.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with three people who used the service. People told us they were happy at Abi House and that they received good care and support. People said, "The staff are very good" and "Very nice." One person particularly liked that "Everybody is equal." People were treated with respect and dignity. People were empowered to be independent and make decisions about their care.

People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with people's needs and preferences. A full assessment of people's needs was done at the start of their care and was continually reviewed. People were included in discussions about their care. Specific medical and physical conditions were planned for and there were clear instructions for staff in how to support people. People's rehabilitation goals were reviewed and discussed frequently to ensure people were being supported to meet these goals.

People were safe from the risk of abuse and neglect. Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and understood how to identify and report concerns. People who lived at the home told us they felt safe living there.

Staff received appropriate support and training. A new manager had been recently appointed and gaps in training were being addressed. Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and had high job satisfaction.

The provider had systems in place to assess their own quality. The provider responded appropriately and swiftly to any concerns about quality.

 

 

Latest Additions: