Adalena House

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 supportachieved 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 hasremained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback

confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager told us that people’s care plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly. However, this had not been documented and therefore we could not be assured that information recorded in care plans was always accurate and up to date. We saw some documented evidence to demonstrate that people and their relatives had been involved in reviewing people’s needs.

People had care plans and risk assessments that detailed information around health, communication, mobility and wellbeing needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what wasimportant and mattered to them. They did not always do this in line with legislation and current

evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s care plans detailed what was important to them and their likes and dislikes wererecorded. Food and drink preferences were documented, and we saw some documentedevidence to support that this is what people received. However, documentation around therecording of this required improvement. Staff appeared confident, and were competent whendelivering care and support. A member of staff that we spoke to was able to tell us detailedinformation about a person’s dietary needs and how these were met.

The provider always worked across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

The registered manager and care team expressed difficulties with external partners when trying to access help and support for people. However, the registered manager advocated strongly for people. One relative told us that when their family member was in hospital for a long stay, the registered manager and care staff took turns to visit the hospital daily to provide support to the person, "They [staff] went above and beyond to visit each day and stay with [person], to make sure [person] wasn't alone."

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

People’s care plans identified health and wellbeing needs, and identified how people wereofferedhealthier options. One member of staff shared how they cut and displayed certainhealthy foods to make them more visually appealing to people to encourage their engagementwith healthy foodchoices.We saw evidence of timely referrals to external healthcare partnersand people being supported to attend appointments for a range of health needs. Daily carenotes recorded people being supported and encouraged with personal and oral health hygiene.Staff told us how they developed activities for people that included mobilisation to encouragepeople to engage with physical activity.

The provider did not always show how they routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always evidence that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

It was not always clear how people’s care and treatment was monitored to improve it, as the recording around monitoring outcomes was not always in place. One person’s care plan identified that they should be monitored for increases to their weight, however the requirement was that they were only to be weighed once a year.

The registered manager told us that people’s care and treatment was regularly monitored with the aim of continuously improving it for people. We saw evidence one person being supported to undertake rehabilitation exercises and this was recorded in their care notes. One person’s relative told us how the home had supported and encouraged their family member with rehabilitation exercises following a stroke.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not alwaysrespect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider had completed Mental Capacity Assessments and had discussed and reacheddecisions to be taken in people’s best interest. However, these decisions were not always

completed following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2025. We saw no evidence thatleast restrictive options had been considered, and only limited evidence to show that others

involved in people’s care had been consulted.

However, we observed staff gaining people’s consent by asking what they wanted, and beingguided by people’s verbal and non-verbal clues. Staff told us that they always sought and

gained consent before providing care and support. One member of staff told us, “They [people]are in charge of their care, I won’t do anything unless I know they’re okay with it.”