Adalena House

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 68 (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 that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices andworked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’sneeds.

We saw some documented evidence to support that people and when appropriate their relativeshad been consulted in decisions around their care and treatment. All relatives that we spokewith told us management made decisions around people’s care, and they were then informed ofany changes. Relatives told us they were happy with this level of involvement, and felt stronglythat staff knew their relatives best, and were the most appropriate persons to make decision inrelation to people’s care.

Care planning detailed people’s needs and preferences. We witnessed person-centredinteractions between staff and people. One member of care staff told us, “They [people] leadtheir care, I just follow.”

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.

There was limited evidence to support that care staff received any formal induction. However, care staff told us that they received between 6 to 8 weeks of supervised support before undertaking care shifts on their own and told us the registered manager inducted them.

Staff had received training in learning disabilities to enable them to support people effectively. Care plans reflected important contacts and family involvement. Conditions stipulated in one person’s deprivation of liberty safeguards in respect of regular family contact was being met. Staff rotas evidence good continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The registered manager told us that information contained in care plans, risk assessment and health passports were reviewed monthly. However, we could not always be assured this was thecase as some documents contained inaccurate information.

Some documents were available in easy read format. Care staff communicated with people in askilled and respectful manner, providing information to people in a way that they couldunderstand.

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.

The registered manager did not hold regular meetings with people and their relatives to seek their views and feedback on the service. However, all relatives that we spoke with said they knew how to and felt confident in raising a concern if they ever had the need to. Relatives told us that they were able to share feedback with staff and the registered manager when they telephoned the home or visited. Relatives told us the registered manager and staff were approachable, open and transparent in their manner.

A complaints policy was in place but there was no evidence to support that it had been reviewed for several years. A complaints and compliments folder was in place, and relatives we spoke with told us that they had never had any reason to make a complaint.

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

The registered manager and staff were able to explain what measures were in place for supportin emergencies. This was the registered manager being on call 24 hours per day, 7 days aweek, and that the provider was to be contacted if the registered was not available. However,we could not be assured that these measures were robust as they relied heavily on theregistered manager.

People were supported to access services and attend appointments when needed. Care recordsevidenced detailed actions taken to access support for a person experiencing a deterioration intheir health and wellbeing. There was appropriate signage around the home and bathrooms hadbeen adapted for people with mobility impairments. Care staff told us that the registeredmanager was approachable and that they felt able to reach out to the registered manager for support and advice when not present at the service.

Staff and management 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.

People had access to and engaged with activities; these were often group based but people expressed a preference for going out with others living at the home. People had activity timetables in place, but the choice of activity was person led. Care plans identified the daily tasks people enjoyed being involved in, such as helping with cooking and laundry, and these activities were reflected in daily care records.

The home environment was clean and homely, but some communal areas lacked the personality of the people who lived there.

People were not always 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 had not been consulted around their wishes for end of life care and funeral arrangements. The wishes of people’s relatives were instead used as a guide for what people living at the home would want. The registered manager told us that they would re-visit these care plans and include people’s view