Alderlea 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 remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The provider did not always make sure people's care plans reflected their individual needs, preferences and circumstances. Some care plans and risk assessments we reviewed were missing important information. This included unclear records about mental capacity assessments, and a lack of information on how people could call for help if they were unable to use a call bell. Relatives were not always involved in care planning or reviews, even when they held power of attorney. This meant people could not always be confident that their care was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs and preferences. However, people’s relatives told us that staff knew their family member well and provided personalised care. For example, a relative told us how staff supported their family member to continue a lifelong hobby with regular visits to a local site which reflected their interest.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service worked with people, their relatives and healthcare professionals such as doctors, district nurses, opticians and other external services. Staff and managers described good communication with external professionals and partner agencies to help meet people's needs. Feedback from partner professionals was positive. Relatives described receiving support from familiar staff and designated carers, which helped maintain consistency in people's care and support. A relative told us, “There is continuity of care achieved with the designated carers."

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and their relatives received information in a way they could understand. Staff used pictures and signs to support people to understand and communicate. We saw handwritten menus and the manager told us they planned to introduce pictures of meals to support people to make choices. Relatives told us bathroom and toilet areas included pictorial signs to aid orientation. A relative told us, “They try to encourage [Name] in every way, for example, using pictures as well as words and signs to explain things."

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People told us staff listened to them and treated them kindly. Complaints were dealt with according to the provider’s policies. Our observations showed warm, respectful interactions and staff responding appropriately when a person became anxious. However, evidence of people’s involvement in formal decision-making was limited. There were no regular resident or relative meetings, and surveys were infrequent with few responses. While staff were attentive day to day, the service lacked reliable mechanisms for listening, acting on concerns, and feeding back outcomes to people and families.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had equal access to support. Staff adapted their approach for people with sensory or mobility needs, and equipment such as frames, wheelchairs and hoists was used appropriately. People confirmed they received help when needed: “There are enough staff, they come quickly when I ring the bell.”

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. Managers were always available to support people, staff and relatives when there were emergencies or concerns. Staff were able to recognise circumstances where the support of external services was required. People were supported and encouraged to attend activities, even if they could not actively engage in them.

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 long ‑term and anticipatory planning was inconsistent. Several relatives said they had never been involved in care plan reviews, and some plans lacked detail about future goals or needs. There was no structured approach to discussing aspirations, longer -term outcomes or future risks. The provider began to address the gaps in some care plans during the assessment.