DCA Alderwood

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

We saw people were treated with dignity and respect and were supported by staff who knew them well. Steps were taken to encourage people’s independence and to support them to make choices.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s relatives told us that staff were kind and caring. One relative told us they didn’t feel that staff listened. They said “I have been having weekly meetings with the service and not a great deal improves or changes.”

Staff told us they had time to support people emotionally and offer companionship. One staff member told us they were “One big family”. They knew the signs that people were becoming dysregulated and how to manage this.

Partners did not provide any feedback in this area at the time of the assessment.

Staff treated people with respect and kindness. We saw staff knock on the door of a person’s bedroom and asked them first whether it was ok if they entered the room. One person told us, “Staff are good they treat me kindly.”

People’s relatives gave mixed feedback on this quality statement. Most relatives felt that staff knew how people communicated and supported this appropriately. One relative felt that people would benefit from more communication aids.

Staff told us how they support people’s individual cultural needs such as by ensuring culturally appropriate food was available.

Partners did not provide any specific feedback on this quality statement.

Staff knew people well and knew how to respond to their individual needs and expressions. When one person repeated a sentence with wrong information the staff responded positively to the person, correcting the information. The person appeared to respond well and enjoy the interaction. If a person behaved in a way which was not appropriate staff knew how to distract the person.

People had support plans which included details of their likes and dislikes, the way in which they wanted to be supported, what they liked to do. People had sufficient staff support to be able to choose what they wished to do each day. People were not always able to express novel activities to do and the service offered them options in these circumstances. The options available appeared to be standard choices and limited. It wasn’t clear if people’s individual interests had been considered.

People’s relatives told us people’s ability to make their own decisions was variable. They were supported with choices but it was not always clear if they were enabled to be as involved in choices about their home and activities as they could be.

Staff told us people were enabled to have regular visits from friends and family. They told us about activities they did in the community. We saw that activities offered tended to be standard across the service and were not necessarily tailored to people’s interests.

People were supported to be as independent as possible. One person told us, “I go out when I want and if I want staff to come with me they do”. Another person told us they had planned a trip to the shops and knew what time they needed to go to get the bus and which bus was best to get.

People had support plans which included details of their likes and dislikes, the way in which they wanted to be supported, what they liked to do. People had sufficient staff support to be able to choose what they wished to do each day. People were not always able to express novel activities to do and the service offered them options in these circumstances. The options available appeared to be standard choices and limited. There was limited evidence that people’s individual interests had been considered.

People’s relatives told us the service was not always effective at identifying when a person’s health was deteriorating due to acute illness.

Staff told us how they identified if someone was becoming upset, through facial expressions and body language. They told us about the sensory considerations people needed to maintain their wellbeing.

Staff were attentive and responded promptly to people using the person’s preferred communication methods. For example, one person responded by choosing which hand indicating the answer to their choice.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. They told us there had recently been a change of management and they were just getting to know one another. Staff told us they felt they could raise concerns if they had them.

People received safe, effective and person-centred care as the provider recognised and met the wellbeing needs of staff. These included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. We saw evidence that consideration had been given to the effects on staff of working long hours.