Alderbrook 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 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.

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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records were in place; however, these were not robust enough to guide staff and ensure consistent care, and not all staff appeared to know people well enough to provide personalised care. There was no evidence that people, or their relatives where appropriate, had been involved in the development or review of their care plans. This limited opportunities for people to influence how their care was delivered and meant staff were not always guided by what mattered most to people.

Daily records lacked personalised detail and did not always reflect the care people had received. The interim manager acknowledged that the electronic care planning system in use was task orientated and did not encourage free text recording, which restricted staff’s ability to sharemeaningful information about people’s experiences, preferences or what approaches worked best for them.

Overall, the provider did not ensure that people received care that was genuinely person-centred or reflective of their individual wishes, choices or circumstances. These shortfalls increased the risk that care was delivered in a routine led manner rather than in response to each person’s needs.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Staff did not always demonstrate sufficient awareness of the needs of people living with dementia. For example, although the unit contained several communal areas, people were routinely supported to remain in a single lounge where the seating arrangement did not promote meaningful interaction or engagement with staff or with each other. We did not see evidence of staff using dementia friendly‑ approaches when assisting people to mobilise.

People living at the service provided mixed feedback regarding their care and support. One person told us, “The atmosphere is okay but recently care workers are arguing with each other about the shift system; they are unhappy recently. They rarely have relative and resident meetings, and nothing changes.” Another person reported, “It’s quite a good service and most of them are doing a good job. They look after us and try to do it properly.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People told us they were not always able to understand information presented to them, such as activity and meal options, because they were not available in an accessible or pictorial format. One person did not use words to communicate and there were no pictures or objects of reference used to ensure people could understand the information presented to them. Relative and resident meetings were not taking place at the time of the assessment. People told us these meetings had previously occurred but had since stopped. Some individuals who had attended past meetings were unsure whether any improvements resulted from them, while others felt that no changes were made. Relatives also reported a lack of involvement; one told us they had never been invited to any meetings, and another said they were unaware that such meetings existed, highlighting ongoing concerns about ineffective communication as people and relatives did not always have information available to them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives told us they were not aware of the provider’s complaints procedure. Most said they believed their concerns would be addressed if raised. However, one person told us, “I used to speak to [staff member] but my concerns were not taken seriously.”

The provider had carried out surveys. However, these were undated and although we were told they related to October 2025, we were unable to verify this. The feedback received was mixed and there was no evidence of any analysis, lessons learned, or actions taken by the provider in response to the issues raised.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Care records did not always demonstrate that referrals to external health and social care professionals were made when needed or that people always received appropriate input from relevant services. Although this was evidenced for some people, it was not the same for everyone.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff were not all trained and supported to use de-escalation techniques and dementia specific approaches which meant people were not given care tailored to their needs. While people’s physical health needs were mostly met to a good standard, their emotional and psychological needs were not always met consistently.

People were not always 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.

There was some good evidence in care records showing that people’s end of life wishes had been discussed, including what they valued most and what they feared as they approached the end of their life. However, this practice was not consistent across all individuals. People’s preferences regarding‑ emergency care and treatment, including decisions about resuscitation, were not always documented.