Ailwyn Hall

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

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always ensure relevant changes in people’s needs were reflected in care plans. Staff told us how they access care plans to ensure they are supporting people how they wish to be supported. We observed that people were supported on an individual basis however care plans did not always fully reflect people’s needs and had contradicting information recorded in them, so we could not be assured that what staff were reading was accurate about an individual. However, relatives told us they were included in monthly reviews to discuss their loved one’s care plans to ensure they were actively involved around decisions of a person’s needs.

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. Healthcare professionals told us that the communication could improve at times, however they also felt the service listened to advice and acted upon it. Speaking to the manager and deputy manager we were assured referrals were submitted to relevant healthcare professionals to support a person’s care and support needs. We reviewed the service’s processes, and we could see guidance from healthcare professionals were recorded in people’s care plans. Relatives felt the service was proactive in escalating concerns and ensuring people in the service had appropriate support from relevant healthcare professionals. One relative we spoke with said “the Doctor visits the home on a regular basis and I can see from the notes that the home are passing on any relevant information”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service displayed all information people would require in the service in the reception, and it was up to date. When people moved to the service, they received a package with information about the service. People’s communication and sensory needs were assessed. This ensured staff provided information in a way which was accessible to them.

The service did not evidence complaints were acted upon. Due to a change in processes, we could not see clearly that complaints were captured and investigated. We spoke to the management team who confirmed they had implemented a new complaints log and told us they would ensure they captured all complaints and low-level concerns going forward. We could see lessons learnt were being shared within the service, but we were not assured these were being embedded; actions from a few months ago were no longer being followed and this put people at risk. The management team actively asked for feedback from relatives and staff. The service analysed the results from the feedback and tried to respond appropriately

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were not supported to access basic toileting facilities. When we first began our assessment communal bathrooms were locked and not all bedrooms had ensuites. A lot of people in the service were lacking personal care support and this was due to a lack of facilities being accessible, we discussed this with the service, and they addressed this concern and removed key coded locks from the communal bathrooms and shower rooms.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. We were not assured the service actively empowered people who were most at risk of inequality. One person living at the service could not use words to communicate. The staff did not often interact with them during our visits to the service. This was also evidenced in their activity care notes as they required sensory support, this had only happened once in 32 days. In a 32-day period they only had 5 activities recorded.

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 in the service had recommended summary plans for emergency care and treatment (RESPECT) forms in place where appropriate, however we reviewed peoples care plans and noted discussions were not had around end of life wishes. We spoke to the service, and they said this is something they are aware of, and they have already began speaking to families about these difficult conversations to update the care plans so when the time comes, they have people’s choices recorded.