You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at The Adelaide. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 November 2016

The Adelaide is a local authority run care home for short term respite and reablement support. Reablement is a way of helping a person to remain independent by giving them the opportunity to re-learn or regain some skills for daily living that may have been lost as a result of illness, accident or disability. The home provides accommodation for up to 24 older people, including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people living at the home.

The Adelaide also provided a reablement service for a limited period in a person’s own home that included personal care; help with activities of daily living, and practical tasks around the home. At the time of our inspection they were supporting 19 people in their own homes, four of which were considered to have ‘long-term needs’ and were waiting to be passed on to a private care agency

There was no registered manager in place for the service. The previous registered manager had retired three weeks before our inspection. A new manager was in post but had not yet registered with the Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

People told us they felt the home was safe. Staff and the manager had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the provider’s safeguarding policy and explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.

The risks relating to people across the whole service were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people in the least restrictive way whilst promoting their independence.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner. People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the service and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs.

There were suitable systems in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and assessments. Healthcare professionals, such as chiropodists, opticians, GPs and dentists were involved in people’s care when necessary.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and understood the need to follow legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people, were sensitive to their individual choices and treated them with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. In the residential part of the service mealtimes were a social event and staff supported people, when necessary, in a patient and friendly manner.

Staff were responsive to people’s communication styles and gave people information and choices in ways that they could understand. They were patient when engaging with people who had difficulty in communicating verbally.

People and, when appropriate their families, were involved in discussions about their care planning, which reflected their assessed needs.

There was an opportunity for people and their families to become involved in developing the service and they were encouraged to provide feedback about the service provided. This was both on an informal basis speaking to people and through a survey completed by people using the residential part of the service at the end of each period of respite. People supported in their own homes completed the survey when they were discharged from the service.

People told us they felt the home was well-led and were positive about the manager who understoo

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 November 2016

The service was safe.

People and their families felt the service was safe and staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. People received their medicines at the right time and in the right way to meet their needs.

The senior staff had assessed the health risks to people using the service. Where people were supported in their own homes individual environmental risks were identified and managed appropriately.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and a duty roster system provided the opportunity for short term absences to be managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 November 2016

The service was effective.

Staff sought verbal consent from people before providing care and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

Staff received an appropriate induction and on-going training to enable them to meet the needs of people using the service. Staff were supported appropriately in their role and could gain recognised qualifications.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They had access to health professionals and other specialists if they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 November 2016

The service was caring.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and treated them with dignity and respect.

Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s choices and their privacy.

People were encouraged to maintain friendships and important relationships.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 November 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs.

People were involved in developing their care plans and identifying their needs.

The manager sought feedback from people using the service and had a process in place to deal with any complaints or concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 November 2016

The service was well-led.

The provider’s values were clear and understood by staff. The manager adopted an open and inclusive style of leadership.

People and their families had the opportunity to become involved in developing the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided and manage the maintenance of the buildings and equipment.