Admiralty 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.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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 told us their care and support was person-centred, and they had consistent staff that knew them well. Staff described how they supported people at their pace, giving people time to get to know their preferences and needs around their care.

One person told us, “I can wash and dress myself. It takes me a long time, but I am a creature of habit, and I the carers know I don’t want their help at the moment. “When I do, I will ask for it.”

One relative told us, “Staff have a high level of understanding. They know mum can become scared and panic. All the staff know this and know how to reassure her. They don’t treat her like a child; they speak to her with real care."

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 service worked with a range of health professionals involved in people’s care. Information was shared with staff regarding any changes to people’s health or care needs. Staff shared with us how they supported people and relatives told us they felt staff communication with them was good. One relative told us, “They are on the ball and always ready to tell me if there has been any change.”

People were engaged in a range of activities to stimulate them and occupy their time. One person told us, “They give you a programme of activities, but I prefer to be on my own sometimes. You have volunteers come in and there is a lot of choice.” One relative told us, “The activities lady will spend time by mum’s bedside. They know she loves animals, so they bought into her room a little pony to see. And they took time to bring her a newly hatched chick for her to stroke."

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were able to access information. The manager told us, “We make sure residents are able to understand the information around them, including when making complex decisions and giving consent. Information is provided in large print and can be translated into different languages. We work with the Blind Association who can provide audio equipment and information in audio format, or we can record information for them to listen to.”

Each person possessed a communication care plan, identifying any barriers to communication. All residents had access to the opticians, hearing services, physical and mental health support and advocacy where needed.

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 had a complaints policy and procedures in place which people and their relatives knew about. The service encouraged people to give their feedback and share their concerns. One person told us, “I have raised some little things in the past and they were dealt with successfully. One relative told us, “When we had a concern, they dealt with it promptly. They phoned us immediately and we were happy with this.”

We saw records of complaints made about the service. The manager had addressed them in line with their complaint’s procedures, investigated fully, and responded to the matter, giving an apology were needed. Lessons learnt were shared with staff as part of improving overall service quality.

Staff told us they felt a sense of empowerment when their voices were heard, and their feedback was acted upon. The manager told us, “When staff suggested a new training programme, we made it a priority to implement these changes promptly.”

Staff surveys were carried out by the service to identify any concerns or areas for improvement, and staff told us they felt valued by their managers and their colleague team. One staff membertold us, “When I first arrived, I didn’t think there were enough meal options for people. This was listened to and the meal choices for people is now much better."

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

There were processes in place to ensure people had equal access to the home and the services provided. The manager told us people were admitted to the home based on their care needs and the capacity of the home to meet those needs.

Care plans detailed people’s equipment requirements to promote their independence. There were adapted facilities such as grab rails in bathrooms to support people overcome physical challenges, and there was appropriate, dementia friendly signage around the home to support people’s orientation and find their way around more easily.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. We observed staff treating people as individuals, using their preferred names. Staff actively kept the environment free from obstacles to maximise the safety of people to walk freely around the home, and they knew the procedures to follow in an emergency.

Professionals we contacted told us the service was proactive and responsive. They could contact the home anytime and their queries would be responded to. One healthcare professional told us, “They are very responsive, and referrals are often made before they are seen by us. I no longer have the same concerns under the previous owners, and I am definitely seeing great improvements to patient care."

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.

The service encouraged people to give their feedback and share their concerns about the service. Regular residents’ and relatives’ meeting took place and staff met monthly to hear updates and voice any issues. One relative told us, “I do try and attend these meetings, and I am sent the notes from a meeting if I have been unable to attend.”

Staff recognised and respected people’s social needs, religious backgrounds and cultural needs. Where people preferred to have personal care given by a female carer, this was facilitated. One relative told us, “They know mum likes to have the radio on when getting washed and dressed for the day."

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.

People had advanced care plans in place which stated their end of life wishes, and their DNACPR status (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) forms documents within their care plans. This is an advanced decision not to attempt CPR; it is not about other treatments or care. Staff were aware of people’s wishes and had completed training in end-of-life care. At the time of our inspection, no one was at the end of their life. The manager told us they worked closely with people, their relatives and professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. They also provided emotional support to families, ensuring that people’s lives were celebrated.