Adeline House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We observed staff interacting with people and found they were kind and caring, although sometimes task focused. Relatives told us staff were nice. One relative said, “They [staff] seem to be kind.” Another relative said, “[Family member] had their favourite carers. They [staff] are nice. We are always friendly with the staff.” Another person said, “Some staff go out of their way to come and chat with me, they [staff] are very good.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People and relatives felt they had opportunities to engage in meaningful activities and partake in outings they enjoyed. One relative said, “They have loads of activities going on. They have tea mornings; they have bands going in like brass bands and have days out.” Another relative said, “They do lots of social events. On 23 October 2025 they are going to a garden centre. [Family member] really likes it there.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. We observed staff interacting with people and found they were often task focused. For example, the mealtime experience during lunch was void of atmosphere and staff only interacted with people to complete a task. There was very little communication between staff and people. Relatives told us their family members were offered choices, and their preferences were respected.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We spoke with relatives regarding staff response times and received mixed feedback. One relative said, “They [staff] come quickly [when family member needs staff support], one in 20 seconds, it’s not a problem.” Another relative said, “There have been times when they [staff] have taken a while to answer [call system], I think they are lacking 1 or 2 staff.”

The provider cared about and promoted the well-being of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff had access to a staff handbook, and reasonable adjustments were considered as part of their employment and reviewed at regular intervals.