Admiral Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We spoke to some people and their relatives who told us staff were kind and caring and they were happy with the service they received. One person told us, “Yes they [staff] are very kind, they offer to do things for me and they speak kind words.” Another said, “They are patient with me; they listen to what I have to say.”

We saw examples of disrespectful and undignified language used in incident reports do describe people or their presentation.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans did not consistently include information about their aspirations, culture or protected characteristics. We asked for examples of these needs being planned for or met, and the provider was not able to produce any during the inspection.

Staff told us they felt people’s protected characteristics were considered however were unable to describe any examples.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and their relatives told us staff knew them and their needs well and understood their preferences. Care plans did include some person-centred information however this was not always up to date and reflective of current needs. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they would review all care plans and add information as required.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff we spoke to gave examples of calling emergency services for people to respond to their immediate needs, however information of how and when to escalate deteriorating health conditions were not always included in their care plans which meant staff did not always have access to information for guidance. In addition, medicines records did not include guidance for pain relief prescribed ‘as needed’, which may make it difficult for staff to identify and provide analgesia if required. This had not been identified by any internal processes.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

There was a lack of training opportunities for staff to ensure they had the knowledge and information to carry out their roles. There were no regular, direct observations of practice to assess staff competence, provide feedback, or identify further support or learning needs. This meant the provider lacked effective oversight of staff performance and did not ensure staff were equipped or supported to deliver safe, person- centred care. The provider had a staff handbook and contract and policies and procedures for staff to refer to. One staff member was pregnant, and evidence was seen of risk management and planning around this protected characteristic.