Alderbrook Care Home

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.

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

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for, or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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 did not always maintain people’s confidentiality or uphold their dignity in public areas. For example, we observed an external professional and a staff member discussing a person’s Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status just outside a communal area where other people were present and able to overhear the conversation. This demonstrated a lack of awareness of people’s right to privacy and respectful communication.

Most people we spoke with were positive about the caring approach of staff. One person told us, “The quality of care is 100%. It’s like a holiday, a holiday with support. There are no restrictions.” Relatives also spoke positively, describing staff as kind and attentive, with one stating staff treated their family member as an individual and had taken time to get to know them. However, some relatives reported that not all staff were equally interactive or engaging, indicating inconsistency in the quality of staff interactions.

Overall, while there were examples of compassionate care, the provider did not ensure that all staff consistently demonstrated kindness, respect, and dignity in their interactions., This placed people at risk of experiencing care that did not fully uphold their rights or emotional wellbeing.

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.

Although some person-centred detail had been recorded in ‘Who I Am’ documents within care plans, this was not consistent across the service. Care plans lacked sufficient information about people’s personalities, histories and what mattered to them, which limited staff’s ability to deliver truly individualised support.

We found examples where people’s cultural needs had not been met. One person had not received foods appropriate to their cultural preferences. This was raised with the interim manager during the visit, who confirmed the matter would be investigated.

Overall, the provider did not ensure that care was personalised or that people’s individuality was respected and reflected in day-to-day practice. This placed people at risk of receiving care that did not fully meet their needs or reflect what was important to them.

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.

Some people told us they were involved in making decisions; however, others reported that the care they received did not always align with their preferences. One person described having to wait three days for a bath because the staff member supporting them was unfamiliar with the equipment. They also told us, “I have to insist that I want a shower, I am encouraged to just have a wash.” Another person told us, “A staff member entered the lounge and turned off the television while I was watching.” When asked if they felt they could challenge this they said “no.”

Although staff appeared to understand people’s general preferences and abilities, they did not always encourage or enable people to maintain independence. We observed limited engagement and a lack of activities. Activity coordinators were seen sitting with people solely to prevent them from standing, due to falls risks, despite those individuals not being assessed as requiring one-to-one support.

People told us there were very few activities available. One person reported that activities “hardly happen anymore,” and although trips had been discussed, such as outings to Roundhay Park or plans for a seaside visit, these had not been followed through.

Overall, the provider did not ensure that people were consistently supported to make choices, maintain control over their daily lives or maximise their independence. These shortfalls increased the risk that people would experience care that was task led rather than person-centred, and that their rights, preferences and independence would not be upheld.

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.

We observed instances where staff did not respond when a person was visibly distressed. On one occasion, a person required assistance, but staff did not approach them, and the inspector had to prompt staff to attend. In another example, a person who was waiting for their meal became anxious and attempted to leave the table. Staff continued to tell the person to wait, without offering reassurance, distraction or an explanation of what they were waiting for. This demonstrated a lack of timely intervention and a lack of person-centred‑ responses.

There was also a lack of clarity and organisation within the staff team regarding roles and responsibilities. Staff did not always appear to know who they were responsible for supporting at a given time, which contributed to delays and inconsistent responses to people’s needs.

Overall, the provider did not ensure that people consistently received timely, responsive or compassionate support when they required it. These shortfalls increased the risk that people would experience unnecessary distress, reduced wellbeing and care that did not fully meet their needs.

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

Staff consistently reported feeling unsupported, undervalued and excluded from meaningful discussions about their roles and responsibilities.

Although staff meetings were held, staff told us they did not feel able to contribute or that their views were listened to. Several staff members said that when concerns were raised, no action was taken and issues remained unresolved. Staff described the culture as one of blame rather than one that encouraged learning or professional growth. One staff member told us, “We have very poor management who forget that they have a duty of care for their staff. It is always a blame culture… When I have raised my concerns, nothing ever changes.”

The provider had not ensured that staff received regular supervision or appraisals. One staff member told us they had not received any appraisal or supervision since starting their employment and did not feel supported by management or the organisation. Staff consistently described morale as very low, and many felt that the lack of stable and consistent leadership had significantly contributed to this.

Overall, the provider did not demonstrate a commitment to supporting staff wellbeing or fostering a positive workplace culture. These shortfalls limited staff’s ability to deliver safe, effective and person-centred care. Information relating to concerns about the governance of the service is included in the well led section of this report.