You are here

Archived: Adaiah Care Ltd

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 March 2013
Date of Publication: 27 April 2013
Inspection Report published 27 April 2013 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 March 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. However, people’s views and experiences were not always taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

There were limited systems in place to ensure that people received enough information to be involved in the decision to use the service. A ‘statement of purpose’ had been produced. This outlined the services that the agency offered, however did not reflect the service being provided at the current time. For example, details of staffing arrangements did not reflect that the provider currently did not employ staff. This meant that people looking to use the service would not be aware of this important information.

A ‘service user guide’ had not been written. The provider told us that plans were in place for a guide to be produced. Without this information, people would not be able to make an informed decision about whether to use the service or not. One person told us that she had not chosen to use the service and would like to change to an agency closer to her home.

People using the service told us that the provider met with them prior to them using the service. This was in order to discuss the services that the agency provided and to find out about people’s individual care and support needs. A relative told us “The manager met with us and we discussed our mother’s plan of care.” However, people told us that the service they received did not always meet their expectations based on the information they had initially received from the provider.

People using the service and their families were involved in care reviews with health and social care professionals involved in their care. The provider was also involved in this process. This provided people with the opportunity to discuss the service they received and whether their care needs were being met. Relatives told us that they were confident that the agency would notify them of any concerns or changes regarding people’s care needs. A relative told us “I know that if there were any problems with my parents, the agency would notify me straight away.”

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. Care plans included information about people's interests and preferences regarding their daily lives. Information was also included about people’s religious and cultural needs and how staff supported them regarding this.