Archived: Alderwood L.L.A. Limited - Rushden

Updated 9 October 2025

This assessment commenced on 9 October 2025. We visited the service on 10 and 16 October 2025, we reviewed further evidence off site, and concluded the assessment on 2 December 2025.

This was an announced assessment. The provider was informed we would be commencing an assessment of the service on 9 October 2025, so that they could give some prior warning to the people using the service to avoid any unnecessary disruption.

This service is a care home for adults living with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. We assessed this service against the ‘right care, right culture, right support’ guidance, to make judgments about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We found that the provider was supporting people in line with this guidance.

Following two whistleblowing disclosures in relation to the previous managers overseeing the service, there was recently a new management team in place. This included a new manager, who was going through the process of becoming a registered manager with us, at the time of our assessment.

The provider then found other concerns in addition to those raised in the whistleblowing. The manager in post at the time of our assessment had made significant improvements to the areas of concern, as well as other areas that needed their attention. We therefore focused on evidence from the time the new manager was appointed in June 2025.

There were thorough and effective systems in place which enabled managers to have sufficient oversight of the service. There was an open culture, which focused on learning and empowering people using the service.

There were some issues identified during our assessment with medicines and the integrity of some senior members of staff. These were addressed promptly, and we were assured that leaders had the skills and competence to manage these situations.

Most staff felt they were included, listened to and that their wellbeing was promoted and upheld. Most staff felt confident in the processes to speak up, but some felt that more proactive action was needed to promote their freedom to speak up.

Updated 9 October 2025

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience, so we used observation to gauge their feelings, and the quality of care they were receiving. We also used our Quality-of-Life tool to establish whether people whether our observations reflected a good quality of life for people using the service.

Relatives were happy with the care people were receiving, and with how the recent sudden change in management was communicated with them. They were happy with the manager in place, and one told us, “[Manager] is doing a great job” and “I am happy with the way the home is managed.”

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness. One relative told us, “I have never seen anything but respectful behaviour towards [relative].”

We observed situations whilst on site, where people were anxious, becoming agitated or were nervous. Staff remained calm and respectful in their approach and knew people well enough to manage the situation confidently and resolve the source of upset for people.

People and relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of care. Similarly, where there were changes to people’s needs, people and relatives were involved in adapting care to continue meeting their needs. One relative told us, “They are really good at ringing me and telling me what’s happened.” They went on to explain they are always asked for their input.

We observed examples during our assessment of the provider upholding the Duty of Candour regulation, ensuring they are open and transparent about mistakes, and involving people, relatives and professionals in solutions, to ensure a holistic approach.

We assessed the service using our ‘right support, right care, right culture’ guidance and found the provider were supporting people in line with this. This meant that the model of care, and the setting maximised people’s choice, control and independence. Care was person centred and promoted people’s dignity and human rights, and the ethos, values and attitudes of leaders and staff ensured people led confidence and empowered lives.