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

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 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.

The manager ensured people’s care plans were centred around people’s personalities, choices, preferences and goals. Staff demonstrated good knowledge about people using the service and had good knowledge about what constituted person centred care.

We observed people being supported in line with their preferences, for example, around emotional distress, or nutritional choices.

There was room for improvement to ensure that language used in people’s care plans and assessments was person centred and reflected people’s right to choose. This was raised with the manager during our assessment, who explained this was an oversight, and we were assured this would be rectified promptly.

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.

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 provider demonstrated their ability to recognise where there was a gap in people’s care. For example, they had identified that they may not be able to meet the needs of one person for much longer, due to changes in their physical health, therefore, referrals were made to their funding authorities for a full review.

People were supported and encouraged to become integrated into their local communities. This typically was through community activities, such as attending local events that were taking place. Additionally, people were supported to go to local leisure venues, such as trampolining parks, where they had expressed a personal goal or aspiration.

Managers and leaders reviewed and updated people’s care plans and assessments, to ensure continuity of care, should someone require care or support from a different organisation. There was room for improvement to ensure that all information was kept up to date, as we did find some information in people’s documentation that was no longer relevant.

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

Some information had been adapted and developed into a format suitable for people needs, however, this related to service-wide information, such as their impact report for 2024-2025 and their service user guide. Information specific to people themselves, had not been developed into a format based on people’s individual needs. The provider had plans to develop and embed this practice in the near future.

Additionally, we found some information relating to people was not up to date. For example, some plans and assessments were written as a chronology of events, which meant some out of date and no longer relevant information had remained in there. This could lead to staff or professionals misunderstanding and operating on old information. We did not find any impact on people from this at the time of our assessment.

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 operates a “your home, your say” scheme, which enabled people and relatives to submit feedback whenever they feel it is necessary.

Where people are unable to provide feedback independently, the provider utilises monthly key worker meetings to support people to share their feedback.

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.”

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

The provider ensured there was adequate staffing on duty during the day and night, so people had equal access to immediate support. The provider was flexible in its approach, so people could access the care and support they needed, when they needed it. An on-call system was in place, which meant people, or staff members could access support from managers and leaders at all times, for guidance, advice or direct support in an emergency or crisis.

Leaders and managers used people’s, relative’s and staff member’s feedback to make changes to the service and made reasonable adjustments where needed.

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.

We found evidence that recently, people’s outcomes had significantly improved. People had more autonomy over their care, health and lives. People had more choice about their home, nutritional choices and how to spend their time.

There were processes in place to ensure people were heard and supported to work towards their own goals and achievements.

Staff, leaders and managers understood the inequalities and barriers people using the service were more likely to face, and knew how to challenge them, to enable equal experiences for all.

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.

At the time of our assessment, people and relatives had not wanted to discuss or make end of life plans, however the provider had systems in place which could be utilised if someone changed their mind, or a situation arose that required decisions to be made.

People were encouraged to plan for the near future, setting goals and aspirations. People, relatives, staff and managers were involved in planning how these could be achieved, and reviewed people’s progress along the way.