Archived: Alderwood L.L.A. Limited - Hayway

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always uphold values such as dignity and respect. We found some practice issues around compassion and dignity during our time at the service. We observed staff sharing private and intimate information about people, to their colleagues, in the presence of ourselves and other external visitors.

This was shared with managers and leaders at the time, and we were assured that they had taken appropriate action to address this. We remained concerned that this was normal practice at the home, and further work needed to be done to embed these values into the culture. Managers and leaders were aware of the concerns around the culture at the service and taking steps to address this.

During our time at the service, we also observed many positive, kind and compassionate interactions between staff, managers, leaders and people.

Staff felt there was a culture of kindness, and this emanated from the attitude and culture set by managers and leaders.

One person told us “I really like it here. The garden, the food, the staff are nice.”

A relative we spoke to referred to the staff as “caring” and “considerate.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff would factor in people’s cultural backgrounds into day-to-day care, for example, people who favoured certain traditional meals from their culture, staff would support them to cook these meals.

Leaders incorporated information about people’s past and backgrounds into documentation, to enable staff to understand aspects of individuality.

People had differing communication needs to each other, and staff were knowledgeable about these. This enabled people to be engaged in their care, treatment and support.

People’s strengths, abilities, goals and aspirations were considered and planned into people’s care.

One relative told us “They are aware [person] likes music, and they do try to incorporate all the things [person] likes into his care.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were involved in the day-to-day maintenance of their environment, such as décor, chores and meal preparation. This also promoted people’s choice and control.

Where people were able to, they were supported to make decision and choices about their care and wellbeing. At monthly key worker meetings, people would meet with their key worker and share personal goals and aspirations they would like to work towards.

Since the new management team were in place, there had been a significant decrease in restrictions on people using the service, and staff had recently taken part in active support training enabling them to further promote people’s independence.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed situations whilst at the service, 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 confidently and resolve the source of upset for people.

Managers and leaders ensured there was relevant and ample information within people’s care plans and assessments, to enable staff to meet their needs and respond appropriately to people.

Staff were provided with training, to enable them to respond to people’s individual needs. Through a risk management plan, the provider ensured there were enough staff with up-to-date relevant training, such as emergency first aid, on shift at all times, where training compliance had fallen below their 80% target.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff are given regular opportunities to share feedback, ideas and suggestions, via 1 to 1 supervision, and group settings such as team meetings. Staff told us that their managers are approachable, and that things are followed up when they are raised.

We found that staff received regular supervision, although some staff members felt the promotion of communication via the provider app, meant they were not welcome to reach out directly to managers. Others did not share the same concerns, and one staff member told us “We get monthly supervisions, and I definitely can share ideas.”

Staff told us how the manager approaches members of the team before decisions are made and involve them in it. One staff told us “[Manager] will take all of our opinions and blend it with hers before making a decision.”

The provider has rewards schemes in place, such as team members of the month and long service awards.