Alison House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

The last rating for this key question was good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and relatives’ feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff at the service worked with people, their families and other health and social care professionals to assess people’s needs and choices to make sure care was planned in a person-centred way.

People’s relatives told us they were consulted when setting out care plans and reviews. Due to people living at their family homes, it was vital that there was continuity of care and support whilst staying at the service.

Some people were supported by staff not employed by the provider, but employed by the family, to ensure the continuity of care. This showed the service was able to provide a person-centred assessment.

Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated.

The provider made sure people received evidence-based care which reflected good practice.

Staff undertook a wide range of training. Staff told us this training had helped them to understand more about their roles. Additional training was commissioned to ensure staff understood how to meet 1 person’s specific needs. Similarly, staff were trained to use a feeding system which enabled food to go directly into a person’s stomach.

Staff were encouraged to improve their own skills and develop their careers. One staff member told us “I am starting my level 3 course tomorrow which the service has paid for, and will give me time off to complete.”

Other staff told us they had training in complex health conditions including managing epilepsy. The training matrix showed staff training was up to date.

Feedback indicated staff worked well with each other and external partners. One health professional and a relative told us they thought that the use of temporary staff hindered effective communication. We were told by the provider they were considering ways to improve recruitment to the service. They were also considering additional methods to aid effective communication.

Permanent staff attended regular team meetings, and individual supervisions to ensure they understood their role, and were supported to complete it with competence.

Staff told us the team worked well together, and in the absence of additional permanent staff, the use of regular agency and sessional staff helped the team provide a good service.

A professional told us “In my contact with the service, I would say the service works in partnership with me when I have clients accessing the service for short breaks.” Another professional said, “The managers at Alison House often reach out for support or with referrals. They are proactive to ensure that their staff are trained and supported to provide care for their service users.”

Relatives spoke well of the staff team. One family said “Staff do communicate well with me. I am very very happy here. Really works well here, the respite.”

Support plans showed that people attending Alison House had complex medical conditions as well as a learning disability and or autism.

Risk assessments explained how to support people with complex conditions, such as epilepsy or severe allergies, and this information was available via the care recording system and paper-based copies so staff unfamiliar with people could access this information readily.

One relative told us they felt confident when their family member was using the service, “Staff get medical attention quickly if needed.”

Relatives praised the quality of the food. We received comments such as “[Person] likes the food they prepare,” and “Good portions and fresh food. Very well made.” Another relative told us “[Person] likes the food. They have taken on board suggestions. Snacking on grapes, giving [person] squash.”

Staff supported people with health care appointments if these were due whilst they were staying at the service. The service was linked in with local health and social care professionals. People had hospital passports in place. These are documents which set out clearly and in an accessible way, people’s main health and communication needs in the event they need to be admitted to hospital.

Staff worked with family members to improve the health and wellbeing of the lives of the people they supported during respite.

Relatives praised the quality of the service. One family member said “The service has definitely improved. We have our own routines. We gave advice, and they have taken it on board.”

Family members found the staff team friendly and open to feedback. We were also told “The staff are approachable.. Never had any problem” and “The staff team is proactive and action things quite quickly.”

Staff undertook training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were able to tell us how they applied this at work to ensure people’s rights were respected.

Staff could tell us what things people liked, whether it was food or activities, and how they offered them choices. By understanding how to communicate with specific people, in their own very personal way, the staff gained consent for day to day decisions.

For people who lacked the mental capacity to consent to more complex decisions, the provider discussed these decisions with people’s relatives so that decisions could be made in their best interests.