Aldercar Residential Care Home

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to assessing people’s needs and seeking consent.

This service scored 38 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were not adequately assessed and documented to ensure people received effective care and treatment. We found some people did not even have their needs assessed prior to moving into the home. People did not always have care plans in place to ensure staff knew how to support them. People told us they were not involved in their assessments or care planning.

These were significant shortfalls and we have asked the provider to take action, which they have started to immediately.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People did not receive support based on current good practice or legislation. We found a task focused, institutionalised approach amongst the staff team, which was not in line with current best practice for supporting older people and people living with dementia.

We found that dietary requirements were not known by kitchen staff, for example where people should have a diabetic diet. We found peoples preferences in relation to their nutrition were not being met, they were not actively involved in menu planning and people told us they preferred certain types of food, such as spicy food, however this was not catered for.

These were significant shortfalls and we have asked the provider to take action, which they have started to immediately.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us they had experienced a difficult time over the last year where their roles and duties had been changed. However, they had seen improvements recently and felt team working had improved. Healthcare professionals spoke positively about the communication between themselves and the service.

However, people’s needs were not comprehensively assessed and documented therefore the provider would be unable to share an accurate assessment with other services.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Due to the restrictive practice described in the Safe section of this report, people were not empowered to be independent and had little choice or control over their day.

Staff did support people with some of their health needs; people told us they were supported to see the GP and district nurses visited when required. A healthcare professional told us, “Referrals are escalated to our team in a timely manner and staff are receptive to the advice and recommendations transmitted to them to ensure delivery of good patient care.”

However, we did find examples where people were not supported with their hearing and visual needs effectively. We have asked the provider to take action, which they have done so immediately.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Due to the poor record keeping, it was hard for the provider to evidence effective monitoring on people’s care and treatment. However, feedback from healthcare professionals and people was mostly positive regarding outcomes. A relative told us, “They [family member] are so much better since they came here. They eat well, are walking better and the routine means they seems to be mentally better than they were.”

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

The service had closed-circuit television (CCTV) operating throughout the communal areas, we could find no evidence of people consenting to this. There was very little documented consent for any care and treatment being provided.

The provider did not make sure they met their legal obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People who lacked capacity did not have best interest decisions documented in line with the code of practice.

These were significant shortfalls and we have asked the provider to take action, which they have started to immediately.