Alas Healthcare

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.
This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to in relation to person centred care as assessments did not show how people would like their personal care to be delivered and information was not tailored to people’s communication needs.

This service scored 57 (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 place people at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Staff did not always work in partnership with people to review and respond to changes in their needs.
Not everyone we spoke with felt the provider delivered person-centred care. One relative told us they felt the care was not person centred with staff only providing the bare minimum support and communication was poor.
The provider’s systems did not always ensure all people’s needs had been assessed and planned for to ensure people would receive individualised care. Care plans lacked detailed guidance about people’s preferences for personal care. For example, records did not specify whether people preferred a bath or shower or how they liked staff to support them with personal care. Care plans also did not explore people’s food and drink preferences, including their likes and dislikes. One staff member told us, “Not really (enough in the care plan). You have to get to know him and find out what they like and dislike.” Therefore, staff might not always understand people’s preferences and deliver care in line with their individual wishes and choices.
Records did not always provide staff with the information they needed to support people safely. One staff member told us, "Before I start a new package, I go through their care plan. I don't always follow the care plan as it doesn't correspond to what they want. I ask them what they want when I get there. If it doesn't correspond, I let the company know straight away and what they want for their routine. I have got angry with the care plan as it wasn't what the clients wanted." This demonstrated that care plans did not always reflect people's current needs and preferences.

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs and worked with other services to deliver joined-up, flexible care that promoted choice and continuity.

The provider supported people with consistent staff, which helped maintain continuity of care and enabled staff to develop a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences.

Staff communicated effectively with healthcare professionals and acted on information and advice in a timely way. This helped ensure staff responded promptly to changes in people’s needs and maintained coordinated care and support.

The provider did not always provide people with appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that met their individual needs.

People could not always access their care records to help them understand and review their care arrangements. People told us they had not seen their care plans, including when they had requested copies of these documents.

The registered manager was not aware of the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) to ensure information would be presented to people in ways that met their needs. Although the manager gave examples of how staff met people’s communication needs, the provider had not implemented a policy to support a consistent approach. As a result, the provider could not demonstrate how it ensured staff identified, recorded, shared and met people’s information and communication needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns or make complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them about changes made in response to feedback.
People gave mixed feedback about how the provider responded to concerns and complaints. One person told us they had raised concerns with the registered manager several times but felt these had not been addressed. They said, “They haven’t even contacted us to see how things are.”
The provider recorded one complaint. However, complaint records did not show what action staff had taken in response to the complaint or what improvements they had made as a result. The registered manager told us they had responded to the complaint and would update the records, ensure learning is shared with staff and formally close the complaint.

The provider did not always enabled people to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had equality and diversity policies in place and ensured staff completed relevant training. However, shortfalls in people’s care assessments and care planning meant staff did not always understand all barriers some people may face when accessing care and so appropriate action could be taken to support them. As a result, people might not access care in a way that promoted equality, reduced discrimination and protected their rights.

Staff and leaders listened to people who were more likely to experience inequality in care, support, treatment, or outcomes and adapted care to meet their individual needs.

Staff told us they treated people fairly and without discrimination.

People were supported to plan for important life changes and had opportunities to make informed decisions about their future, including their wishes for end-of-life care. However, we identified areas where the provider needed to improve.

At the time of our inspection, no one was receiving end-of-life care. Records did not demonstrate that staff had received training in end-of-life care. For people with a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision, records did not clearly identify the location of the DNACPR form. Accurately recording the location of a DNACPR helps emergency services make decisions about people’s care which are in line with their wishes. The provider told us staff would deliver end-of-life care in line with people’s wishes if this support was required.