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

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

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.

The manager ensured people’s care plans were centred around people’s personalities, choices, preferences and goals. Staff demonstrated good knowledge about people using the service and had good knowledge about what constituted person centred care.

We observed people being supported in line with their preferences, for example, around emotional distress, or nutritional choices.

There was room for improvement to ensure that language used in people’s care plans and assessments was person centred and reflected people’s right to choose. This was raised with the manager during our assessment, who explained this was an oversight, and we were assured this would be rectified promptly.

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.

The provider demonstrated their ability to recognise where there was a gap in people’s care. For example, they had identified that one person would benefit from the input of a Speech and Language Therapist to better understand their communication style, so a referral was made.

People were supported and encouraged to become integrated into their local communities. This typically was through community activities, such as attending local events that were taking place. Additionally, people were supported to go to local leisure venues, such as skateboarding parks, where they had expressed a personal goal or aspiration.

Managers and leaders reviewed and updated people’s care plans and assessments, to ensure continuity of care, should someone require care or support from a different organisation. There was room for improvement to ensure that all information was kept up to date, as we did find some information in people’s documentation that was no longer relevant.

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

Some information had been adapted and developed into a format suitable for people’s needs, however, this pertained mainly to service-wide information, such as their impact report for 2024-2025 and their service user guide. Information specific to people themselves, had not been developed into a format based on people’s individual needs. The provider had plans to develop and embed this practice in the near future.

Additionally, we found some information relating to people was not up to date. For example, some plans and assessments were written as a chronology of events, which meant some out of date and no longer relevant information had remained in there. This could lead to staff or professionals misunderstanding and operating on old information. We did not find any impact on people from this at the time of our assessment.

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 and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider operates a ‘your home, your say’ scheme, which enables people and relatives to submit feedback whenever they feel it is necessary.

Where people are not able to provide feedback independently, the provider utilises monthly key worker meetings to support people to share their feedback.

Relatives told us that they felt involved in people’s care, if a decision needed to be made promptly, and there was not time to consult with relatives, the provider would always update them. Where there was time, their input was requested.

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

The provider ensured there was adequate staff on duty during the day and night, so people had equal access to immediate support.

The service is flexible in its approach so people can access the care and support they need, when they need it. For example, one staff member told us about a time they utilised the on-call system to get support during a time of emotional distress for a person in the community, and the prompt response and flexibility to adapt to the situation by their colleagues and managers, meant the situation did not escalate.

Leaders and managers use people’s, relative’s and staff member’s feedback to make changes to the service, and make reasonable adjustments where needed.

Staff and leaders 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.

We found evidence that recently, people’s outcomes had significantly improved. People had more autonomy over their care, health and lives. People had more choice about their environment, what they would do with their time, and more social interaction, which had previously been prohibited between two people.

There were processes in place to ensure people were heard and supported to work towards their own goals and achievements.

Staff, leaders and managers understood the inequalities and barriers people using the service were more likely to face, and knew how to challenge them, to enable equal experiences for all.

People were 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.

At the time of our assessment, people and relatives had not wanted to discuss or make end of life plans, however the provider had systems in place which could be utilised if someone changed their mind, or a situation arose that required decisions to be made.

People were encouraged to plan for the near future, setting goals and aspirations. People, relatives, staff and managers were involved in planning how these could be achieved, and reviewed people’s progress along the way.