Adam House

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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did make sure people were at the centre of their care in practice, but records were not always as detailed as they needed to be in this area.

During observations at Adam House, we witnessed person centred care was being provided. People felt that the service was responsive to their needs.

Care plans were generally person-centred and we saw evidence of people’s involvement. However, due to records not always containing all necessary information about people, we felt there was further work to do in this area. For example, one person’s care plans did not have a completed “all about me” section. The registered manager told us this had been done following identification of this issue.

The registered manager spoke about what person centred care meant to them. They told us, "It is focusing on people's aspirations and how we can support them as individuals."

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people they support, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives and people were generally happy with the care provision. Throughout the inspection, staff and management made reference to various organisations they made referrals to for support when needed. We found examples where referrals were made to ensure people received the right support and treatment.

Professionals provided positive feedback in this area. One professional told us how the service had helped someone integrate into the service. They said, “This young person has a very complex history and has had a number of placements break down. However, they has settled very well into Adam House due to their intensive but person-centred support and have provided a safe environment for them.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People could access information and could express their views in numerous ways including at resident meetings and through surveys. People and their relatives felt information was made available in ways they could understand.

Staff spoke about how they promoted people’s privacy. One staff member said, “We don’t pass on what goes on here outside of the workplace.” People’s information was protected using passwords on electronic devices and paper records were stored away in lockable cupboards/rooms. A GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) policy was in place.

The service generally made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care.

When we asked about providing feedback, one relative said, “I’ve been given one survey last year when there was a CQC inspection. But just the one” whilst another said, “I generally speak to them, and they keep me up to date. I don’t remember if I’ve had a survey.” People and their relatives were able to raise concerns or feedback through various channels. Staff told us they felt able to escalate any concerns to management to investigate.

Records indicated there had been no recent complaints made to the service. Some surveys had been completed by people, their relatives and staff. Responses were mostly positive, and analysis had been carried out. Policies were in place to support people sharing feedback, including a complaints policy.

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

People could access appropriate care and support, and people’s relatives felt the service was accessible. Staff felt people received the care they needed.

The service was generally accessible for people, it had handrails, a ground floor bedroom and en-suite facilities. There was no lift in the service, though no one living at this service required this type of equipment. Professionals felt the service was accessible for people and they also noted that they were able to easily contact the service.

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.

Through our conversations, people’s relatives suggested people were treated equally. Staff told us they had no concerns about the care the service provided. Meetings for/with residents were taking place, which kept people up to date with any changes and allowed them to discuss any concerns.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, specifically around end of life.

We did not ask people and their relatives about end-of-life care plans as we were aware that this was something that had not been covered in peoples care plans. People did not have end of life plans in place or any records of any documented discussions around this. An end-of-life policy was also in place, which stated, “People’s preferences and choices for their end of life care are clearly recorded, communicated, kept under review and acted upon.” This was not always being adhered to, as people did not have appropriate end of life care planning in place. The registered manager told us that they were putting in place end of life documents following identification of these concerns.

The registered manager spoke to us about end of life. They said "They (staff) do eLearning for end of life. District nurses and McMillan have come in before to offer support to staff."