Adelfi Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and support was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care plans derived from the provider’s initial assessment included holistic consideration of people’s physical and mental health, sensory, social and communication needs.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and consent was gained to provide support. People’s individual abilities were assessed, recorded and encouraged to maintain independence.

Staff told us they had access to all the information they needed in order to support people effectively and they were informed of any changes.

Staff told us people’s outcomes, what they hoped to achieve, were discussed as part of their initial assessment. People’s support needs and care plans was reviewed 3 monthly or when any change in circumstance occurred.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received care in line with what mattered to them. The provider accessed best practice information from nationally recognised organisations to inform their policy and practice. For example, the provider had a policy in place, based on National Institute of Care (NICE) guidelines, which sets out how the provider will work with health and social care agencies during a person’s transition to and from hospital.

The provider kept up to date with best practice and innovative treatment by attending their local authority provider alliance group and researching nationally recognised organisations latest information.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider worked alongside a range of health and social care agencies to ensure people received effective care. This included liaising with community nurses, occupational therapists, GPs and local pharmacies as needed. People and relatives confirmed this.

One staff member described a situation where staff and other support services had worked together well. It included the staff member calling the registered manager for extra support. An outside agency called at the address and the staff member delegated a task to progress an on-line referral to make a social care appointment and note it down in the person’s diary. This was a good example of how different services worked together to achieve an effective outcome for the person.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Relatives told us the provider ‘flags’ things they have noticed or are concerned about. Whilst some relatives were the primary carer for their family member, they told us the service provided helped to keep the person well and independent.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had acquired a piece of equipment, which enabled staff with non-clinical training, to monitor people’s vital signs such as temperature, blood pressure, pulse rate and oxygen levels. This had been found to prevent hospital admissions by alerting the person’s GP and other health professionals. It also calculated a score used by health and emergency services to identify early signs of deterioration in a person’s condition.

A relative told us the service enabled their family member to continue to live independently, in a housing scheme where independence was paramount to their tenancy. Another relative said staff encourage and suggest things to improve their family members day to day experience and support their health conditions.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider gained consent to provide care to people at their initial assessment, prior to the care plan being developed in conjunction with the person and their relatives. Consent was reviewed as part of a regular care plan review and people were asked if they felt central to the provided support and in control. Staff and managers told us consent was always requested each time support was provided. This was confirmed by people and relatives.

Staff had completed their mental capacity and consent training and had a good understanding of why gaining consent is a paramount to a person’s human rights. Staff told us, “…you should never assume they lack capacity in any way, and they should make all informed decisions and choices where possible. Where an individual lacks capacity, decisions should be made in the best interests of the individual where they are at the centre of all decisions. I put this into practice by treating every client as an individual where they make the decisions about the care, they receive and gaining consent to complete any task” and “I take extra care to ask or check with a person before undertaking any tasks, and feel that this clarity has helped me to be more confident with the support I am being asked to give.”

We found a mental capacity assessment or best interest decision for one person who was unable to give consent to their care, or for the use of bed rails, had not been completed in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2025. Other health and social care staff had completed these documents for their part of the care package. Although their relative (next of kin) was in the process of registering as the person’s deputy, they did not have legal authority to consent at the time the care was being provided, and a mental capacity assessment and best interest decision was therefore required.