Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Allenbrook Nursing Home, Fordingbridge.

Allenbrook Nursing Home in Fordingbridge is a Nursing home and Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, physical disabilities and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 19th June 2019

Allenbrook Nursing Home is managed by Allenbrook Care Limited.

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

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

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-06-19
    Last Published 2016-09-03

Local Authority:

    Hampshire

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.

15th August 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on the 15 and 16 August 2016 and was unannounced.

Allenbrook nursing home provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 43 people. The home has permanent residents but also provides respite care. At the time of our inspection 38 people were living at the home.

The service had a registered manager. 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 registered manager had left the service in August 2015 but had returned in February 2016.

Individual care records were stored electronically and each member of staff carried a personal data terminal to access and update records accordingly.

The provider had systems in place to respond and manage safeguarding matters and make sure that safeguarding alerts were raised with other agencies.

People who were able to talk with us said that they felt safe in the home and if they had any concerns they were confident these would be quickly addressed by the staff or manager

Assessments were undertaken to identify risks to people's wellbeing. Staff were aware of people's individual risks and knew the strategies in place to keep people safe.

The provider operated safe and effective recruitment procedures. There were sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were not hurried or rushed and when people requested care or support, this was delivered quickly.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. Clear and accurate medicines records were maintained. Training records showed that staff had completed training in a range of areas that reflected their job role.

Staff received training, supervision and were appraised, providing them with appropriate support to carry out their roles.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. At the time of our inspection applications had been submitted by the managing authority (care home) to the supervisory body (local authority) and had yet to be authorised. The manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

People were involved in their care planning, and staff supported people with health care appointments and visits from health care professionals. Care plans were amended to show any changes, and care plans were routinely reviewed to check they were up to date.

People were treated with kindness. Staff were patient and encouraged people to do what they could for themselves, whilst allowing people time for the support they needed.

People knew who to talk to if they had a complaint. Complaints were passed on to the registered manager and recorded to make sure prompt action was taken and lessons were learned which led to improvement in the service.

7th October 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People were treated with consideration and respect and their privacy, dignity and independence were maintained. People were able to make choices about their daily life.

We received positive feedback from all of the people we spoke with. We spoke with nine people. Everyone told us that people's care needs were met. One person told us they were “very comfortable, the staff are very helpful and extremely kind. The food is good too.” Another person told us that the home was “very good, excellent. I cannot complain at all.” People's needs were assessed and they had access to activities.

People were protected against the risk of abuse because staff understood about safeguarding issues and whistle blowing and knew how to report concerns.

The provider undertook sufficient pre-employment checks in order to ensure that staff employed were of good character and had the skills and experience required.

16th August 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People who lived in the home were generally positive about living there. One person told us “It is well organised, staff are excellent, they are so helpful, always there and never let you down”. Another person told us “on the whole people are very nice, very kind”. One person told us that “you get the odd member of staff having an off day”. People we spoke with said that staff were respectful.

One person told us that the “grounds are lovely”. Another person we spoke with said they enjoyed looking out of the bedroom window as they had bird feeders outside because they liked to watch the birds.

The people we spoke with told us that they were not involved in planning their care.

People told us that they were able to choose from two dishes for their main meal and if they did not want either of those choices they could have an omelette. We observed people being offered drinks and biscuits at coffee time. There were facilities for visitors and people who used the service to make drinks for themselves. We observed one person being assisted to eat a meal by a member of staff standing directly in front of them, feeding them whilst the person was sat in a chair in the lounge. One person told us that they were taken into the dining room for dinner but they do not like eating with other the people. They said they had not been asked where they would prefer to eat.

People we spoke with thought that there were enough staff to support their needs. During our visit we observed a clear presence of staff and people had their meals in a timely manner.

During our visit we observed some positive practice but we found that people were not always being respected. There were some concerns about the call bell system but the home took steps to check this following the inspection. The home had effective quality assurance systems and action plans were created to address any issues identified.

 

 

Latest Additions: