Alandale Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect

This service scored 45 (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 did not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Decisions made by the provider demonstrated a profound lack of care for people, staff and their loved ones. There had been significant lapses of judgement by leaders relating to some staffing decisions, which exposed people to a significant risk of abuse, neglect and harm which they had failed to appropriately risk assess. The provider was open with inspectors throughout the inspection process, and acknowledged mistakes and failures in safeguarding practice had been made.

However, we did see and hear positive examples of staff interacting with people in a way which was caring and compassionate. Staff knew people well, took time to ask them about their day and were patient in all their interactions. One relative told us, “They are very kind people. I have never met such kind people”. A person living at the service told us, “Yes sometimes the staff are too kind. I've never seen the staff acting badly or being unkind”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People received care that was tailored to them, promoted individuality and choice as well as allowing people to continue to take part in things that were meaningful to them. There were frequent activities taking place which were diverse and shaped by people’s interests and feedback. During our visit there was a musical entertainer who people clearly took great happiness from and were engaging in their performance in a way that was personal to them. A member of staff encouraged one person to move closer to the performance and sat with them talking about the music and what it meant to that person. We saw people were supported to participate in their local community, and through events such as community carnivals and personal celebrations including birthdays. One relative told us, “My relative celebrated her birthday this year, and they threw her a fantastic party”.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

In some of elements of their care people were promoted to remain independent and retain autonomy, for example one person spoke to us proudly about being able to manage their catheter themselves with minimal staff support. We observed one person with reduced mobility was able to walk independently during the inspection with staff prompting them but encouraging them to move for themself, whilst another person was supported to feed themself through patient hand over hand support from a staff member. One staff member we spoke to told us, “The people who can wash and dress themselves I will assist but encourage them to do it themselves. You know they can do it you just need to encourage them. It would take all their independence away if you did it for them”.

However, improvements were needed in how the home documented and made decisions in partnership with others whether people lacked capacity. We could not be assured that people had always been given maximum opportunity to demonstrate capacity or make decisions for themselves.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During our inspection we observed people’s needs were attended to promptly, for example if they were in distress or needed support with eating, social engagement or to go to the toilet. People had access to call bells to summon assistance if required, and the provider monitored these to ensure they were responded to. There was mixed feedback from people on the support they received. One person stated, “Sometimes it's quick for staff to answer the bell others it takes them a long time. I think it depends on who they're dealing with. They can’t help it if somebody else needs support. If you use the emergency buzzer they all run here straight away”. Another person told us, “Sometimes you can wait 45 minutes for the call bell. It’s just rush rush rush with staff”. Other people gave more positive feedback with one person saying “Yeah there’s enough staff, they are all popping in to check on us. I have a buzzer around my neck. I can call for the girls”

We could not be assured that staff would always be able to respond promptly in all situations, for example around the risks posed to people around stair safety due to the inadequate controls in place.

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Decisions made by the provider demonstrated a poor regard for the welfare of their own staff and their families. Risks posed in this regard were managed poorly by the provider, who had not acted openly or with integrity around this.

Staff were often the subject of physical assault by certain service users, and we received some feedback that they did not feel supported when this happened or were blamed for the incident happening in the first place. One staff member told us, “Being an employee at Alandale is both emotionally and physically draining. We regularly experience aggression from service users, and staff often leave work with bruises, cuts, and in some cases lasting scars. These incidents can feel dismissed by management, and staff are sometimes blamed for them”. Other staff spoke positively about leaders. One staff member told us, “The management are great. The registered manager is always there inside and outside of work. She’s really great”. Staff told us that when they struggled personally such in times of financial hardship, the provider took action to support them however they could.