Adelphi Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We observed staff working in a person-centred way during the assessment. Staff recorded their daily care notes in a respectful manner and care plans were also written with people as the focus. People and relatives were kept up to date about any changes, and some relatives could provide care and support to people alongside staff.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care could be adapted to meet people’s needs, for example moving bedrooms to the ground floor to support mobility issues. The registered manager organised rotas to provide consistent care and many members of staff worked at the home for several years which provided a good level of continuity for people. Staff completed appropriate training for the role for example around dementia and mental capacity to help them understand needs of people who lived at the home.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed and recorded in care records. Staff understood how best to speak to people and adapted accordingly. The registered manager said written information could be adapted to meet people’s communication needs into different formats and could access translation services. Leaders and staff completed training to make sure confidential information was stored according to guidance.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The registered manager sought feedback from people, relatives and staff in different ways. People were asked to complete questionnaires about the quality of the service and relatives filled in surveys. People were also asked about specific issues such as food quality and choices. The registered managed captured any issues raised and recorded what actions were taken in response. There was an appropriate complaints policy and process.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The building was accessible; there was ramp access and had a lift to every floor. Visitors were welcome to visit at any time; parking was limited outside the premises although there were public car parks within a 1-mile radius. People used mobility aids and their own equipment to meet their needs, and we saw staff using these appropriately.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered manager and staff were aware of any barriers people they supported may face and worked to address these when possible. Staff completed training around equality and discrimination, and appropriate policies were in place. Staff reported they did not have any concerns about discrimination.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were asked about their wishes about future care, and this was recorded in care plans. The service had links with the local hospice and staff completed end of life training. We saw evidence of ‘do not resuscitate in the event of cardiac arrest’ (DNACPR) forms which were accessible to visiting professionals. We noted the service had some difficulty in arranging GP reviews, however the registered manager agreed to follow this up to make sure people’s details were up to date.