Alderwood Care Home

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.

We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for this area have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection.

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 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.

Electronic care plans indicated when last reviewed and when next due, and there was manager oversight via care plan audits. Care and support was tailored to people as individuals. Risk assessments were drawn up to reflect those identified within original care planning documents, during the pre-admission assessment and in the event of any new risks being identified.

Care planning documents contained up to date information about people’s care and support needs and was tailored to them. They contained detailed information about their choices, likes and dislikes around food, personal care, any health conditions, abilities and what support was required. There was a detailed life story document, which included information about individual communication needs and any equipment needed for this.

Staff told us that person centred care was fully embedded in the way they worked. One staff member told us, “If a person’s needs and preferences change, the care plan is updated; a summary appears on our devices, and all staff can follow it.” When asked, staff we spoke with were all able to provide examples of person-centred care based on people’s preferences; those who liked to stay in their bedrooms, stay up late or get up early and those who requested the same gender of carer to support with personal care.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to feedback about the care they received. This information was displayed around the home, along with how to provide feedback. People felt listened to and involved; they felt comfortable in raising any concerns.

The provider held regular resident and relatives’ meetings which allowed people the opportunity to talk about things that were important to them. Areas which required some improvements were discussed in meetings with people and their relatives, and ‘You Said… We Did’ information boards provided updates to people about how their feedback had been used to make changes and improve people’s experiences.

There were policies and procedures in place that outlined the process if people or their relatives needed to make a complaint. One family member told us they hadn’t needed to make a complaint and said, “We are very happy with everything here; we feel very well supported.” The provider kept a log of complaints received and used these to help drive continuous improvement.

Staff were respectful of peoples wishes and obtained consent before providing support, assurance was given to people where this was needed. Staff understood the importance of listening to people and involving them in decision making as much as possible.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.