Allendale Residential Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager carried out comprehensive assessments to ensure the service could meet people’s needs. Where possible, people were supported to visit the service to help them decide whether they would be happy living there and to enable staff to assess their needs within the home environment.

The registered manager completed initial assessments based on discussions with the person, their families, and relevant professionals. Following admission, staff continued to review and develop these assessments to ensure they had a full understanding of each person’s needs, preferences, and wishes. Staff used this information to develop care plans and risk assessments, which supported them to deliver personalised care and build effective relationships with people.

Managers reviewed and updated assessments monthly, or sooner where required, to ensure they remained accurate and reflected people’s current needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider ensured people received appropriate support with nutrition and hydration. Staff used recognised tools to identify people at risk of malnutrition or choking and made prompt referrals to relevant professionals. Staff monitored people’s weights and recorded food and fluid intake. They escalated any concerns promptly to healthcare professionals.

The service supported people to have a positive and personalised mealtime experience. The cook spoke with each person about the main meal and offered alternatives to meet individual preferences.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff, relatives, and professionals told us communication within the service was effective.

The provider maintained strong and established links with healthcare professionals. A doctor visited the service weekly to complete a ‘ward round’ and attended as required. The service also worked closely with a range of other professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing.

Professionals we contacted spoke positively about the service, its staff, and management. One professional told us, “Manager was extremely helpful in obtaining all the necessary documentation required to complete our required paperwork prior to our visits. All the staff are very knowledgeable about their individual residents and were able to provide detailed information about (type of needs). During our visits we found all the staff to be caring and compassionate and encountered no concerns.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals to ensure people received prompt and appropriate care. They used their knowledge and professional networks to make appropriate referrals and ensured people accessed the support they needed without delay. This supported positive health outcomes and reduced the need for hospital admissions.

During the assessment, we observed effective joint working with healthcare professionals. For example, a professional visited the service to review people’s treatment plans, discuss upcoming appointments, and confirm escort arrangements. This collaborative approach ensured professionals were well prepared and people received coordinated, person-centred care and a positive experience.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People care and support was regularly reviewed. Relatives told us staff responded promptly to changes in people’s health and wellbeing. They provided examples of effective escalation, including one situation where the service identified changes that led to a health diagnosis. Staff supported the person to attend appointments when family members were unavailable and shared information with relatives. One relative told us, “I hadn’t really expected that level of care, but I couldn’t have got through it (treatment appointments) without them.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider ensured people’s consent and decision-making were appropriately recorded and respected. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, the registered manager completed good mental capacity assessments and recorded decisions made in the person’s best interest. These records clearly detailed the rationale for decisions and the individuals involved.

Staff understood the importance of seeking consent when providing care. They told us they always sought consent, and we observed this in practice during the assessment. Staff adapted their approach to meet individual communication needs. One carer explained how they gained consent from a non-verbal person, stating, “I know residents well, so get to know what their reactions mean and how best to communicate with them. For example, if (person) pulls away I knows to leave him and come back at a later time to try again.”