Adelphi Residential Care Home

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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

It was difficult to see how people and relatives were involved in assessments of their needs; assessments we saw were between 2 and 4 years old. Staff said they encouraged people to participate in planning their care, although people we spoke with were unsure whether they had been involved.

Staff recorded their daily notes in paper files and accessed care plans in the office to check people’s needs. Assessments took account of people’s communication needs.

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.

Staff had good knowledge about people’s needs; care staff and kitchen staff knew about people’s dietary requirements and made sure people received the right food and drink. The provider used nationally recognised tools to conduct assessments, for example people’s risk of weight loss and risk to the health of their skin. We observed staff spending time with people to help them eat and drink during mealtimes. Policies reflected current legislation regarding required standards of care.

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.

There was effective information sharing between staff and handovers were managed well. Information and concerns were discussed during team meetings and individual staff supervision. People had hospital passports so that important information was shared with medical staff if there was a hospital admission. Many members of staff were long standing which meant there was continuity of care. Staff made referrals to health professionals such as dieticians and speech and language therapists.

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.

All food was freshly prepared on site and was nutritionally balanced. People were offered different choices and options. People were supported to participate in exercise and activities both inside and outside of the home, such as walking, dancing and armchair exercises.

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.

Staff monitored and recorded people’s health outcomes, for example where people were at risk of weight loss or malnutrition, staff monitored their weight, and their food and drink intake. Staff documented when they provided pressure relief to people who were at risk of developing pressure sores. The registered manager monitored this to make sure any decline in people’s health was identified and appropriate action taken.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff completed training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood the concept of consent. They talked to people about what they were doing during caring tasks. We saw some evidence of Mental Capacity Act 2005 assessments and best interests’ decision making, and signed consent forms in people’s records. People had been involved in decisions about what they wanted to happen in the event of a cardiac arrest, and this was documented on appropriate forms.