Aldercar Residential Care Home

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 36 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were not at the centre of their care, they felt they lacked choice and autonomy over the support they received. People told us they did not remember being involved in their care planning. A lot of people did not have completed care plans in place. People’s consent had not always been sought for the care, support and treatment they received.

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

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We identified people that required additional support with their hearing, vision and health needs that had not been sought.

Healthcare professionals did speak positively about the relationship they had with staff at the service.

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

Some people within the home did require information to be provided to them in an alternative format, such as large print or via a picture board, which management stated was available.
However, at the time of the assessment there was a lack of readily available and accessible information for people and their relatives, such as information about safeguarding and advocacy. We fed this back to the provider, and they have implemented a specific folder containing this information for people and their relatives.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was no formal structure in place for people to share feedback about the service, such as regular resident meetings. Whilst there had been a few people feedback forms completed earlier this year; there was no evidence these had been analysed or actioned nor had the outcomes been shared in a “you said, we did” type format.

There was no accessible information available to people on how to raise a complaint. People told us they were not always involved in decisions about their care and there was no assurance that people had been involved in changes or reviews of their care.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We found some people had not been supported with care and support they required as described throughout this report.

Some people living at the service were living with dementia. We observed that there was limited dementia-friendly signage in place, which may impact people’s ability to orientate themselves independently. In addition, access to the outdoor space included a step down, which did not support accessibility and could present a risk to people with mobility needs.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

There were no established processes in place to ensure staff and leaders listened to people.

People’s protected characteristics were not always identified within people’s care plans, and this placed people at risk of discrimination and their needs not being met. This meant people were at increased risk of discrimination and unequal access to care, as staff did not always have the information required to provide appropriate, inclusive and person-centred support.

People were not always 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.

We found not all people had been involved in discussions about advanced decisions, end of life care planning and other important life changes.

Some people had end of life care plans in place; however, these lacked sufficient detail to ensure staff had clear guidance to follow. While most people had documented decisions regarding resuscitation, this was not consistently in place for everyone. This meant that, in the event of an emergency, staff did not always have immediate access to the information required to make informed decisions about whether to commence life-sustaining treatment.