- Care home
Archived: Alderwood L.L.A. Limited - Hayway
Assessment report published 13 January 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This assessment commenced on 9 October 2025. We visited the service on 13 October 2025; we reviewed further evidence off site and concluded the assessment on 2 December 2025.
This was an announced assessment. The provider was informed we would be commencing an assessment of the service on 9 October 2025, so that they could give some prior warning to the people using the service to avoid any unnecessary disruption.
This service is a care home for adults living with learning disabilities and autism. We assessed this service against the ‘right care, right culture, right support’ guidance, to make judgments about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We found that the provider was supporting people in line with this guidance.
There had recently been a new management team overseeing this service, including a new manager, who was going through the process of becoming a registered manager with us, at the time of our assessment. This was following two whistleblowing disclosures in relation to the previous managers overseeing the service.
The provider then found other concerns in addition to those raised in the whistleblowing. The manager in post at the time of our assessment had made significant improvements to the areas of concern, as well as other areas that needed their attention. We therefore focused on evidence from the time the new manager was appointed in June 2025.
There were thorough and effective systems in place which enabled managers to have sufficient oversight of the service. There was an open culture, which focused on learning and empowering people using the service.
There were some issues identified during our assessment around dignity and infection control. These were addressed promptly, and we were assured that leaders had the skills and competence to manage these situations.
Most staff felt they were included, listened to and that their wellbeing was promoted and upheld. Most staff felt confident in the processes to speak up, however some staff felt more proactive action was needed to promote their freedom to speak up.
Staff and leaders were quick to respond to changing needs of people using the service. Staff quickly adapted to, for example, different mobility needs, and leaders were prompt to refer and involve other relevant professionals.
People's experience of this service
Some people could not directly tell us about their experience, so we used observation to gauge their feelings, and the quality of care they were receiving. We also used our Quality-of-Life tool to establish whether people whether our observations reflected a good quality of life for people using the service.
One person told us “I really like it here. The garden, the food, the staff are nice.” We found that people were being supported in line with their likes and preferences.
Relatives were happy with the care people were receiving, and one relative told us “We [relatives] all think this is the best environment [person] has ever lived in” and “the staff are friendly and kind, they have a sense of humour” which is something that was important to this person.
Another relative told us “Things have gone very well for [person]. [Person] is safe and happy, so I am very happy with Hayway.”
People’s dignity was not always respected and upheld, and we observed poor practice in relation to this, whilst we were at the service. We were assured that leaders had effectively addressed this.
We observed situations whilst on site, where people were anxious, becoming agitated or were nervous. Staff remained calm and respectful in their approach and knew people well enough to manage the situation confidentiality and resolve the source of upset for people.
People and relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of care. Similarly, where there were changes to people’s needs, people and relatives were involved in adapting care to continue meeting their needs. One relative told us they are involved with annual reviews, but in between they are involved in decisions and conversations as they are needed. They said, “the person chairing [the review] always asks for our opinion.”
We assessed the service using our ‘right support, right care, right culture’ guidance and found the provider were supporting people in line with this. This meant that the model of care, and the setting maximised people’s choice, control and independence. Care was person centred and promoted people’s dignity and human rights, and the ethos, values and attitudes of leaders and staff ensured people led confidence and empowered lives.