Aden 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

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating remains unchanged. We identified a continued breach of regulation in relation to person-centred care. Some people did not get a choice to access activities that were meaningful to them and some people remained in their rooms without any activities. Some people told us they had been unable to access outdoor spaces. During busier times people had to wait for staff to respond to them. Systems were in place to support staff wellbeing and staff felt supported by leaders. Staff showed continued kindness and care towards people. They knew people well and had built trusting relationships over time, showing compassion for the people they cared for. People and relatives recognised this and gave positive feedback about staff and their approach.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people and relatives gave positive feedback about the staff. Overall, they felt staff treated people with kindness and care. Comments included, “They are good staff all round, kind and caring,” “The staff are fantastic, all of them. There isn’t anybody I wouldn’t trust [Name] with. The main 2 carers who look after [Name] are brilliant, they look after him so well,” “The staff are all lovely, really nice people and they always ask if I need anything, they are nice people. They are lovely people. I cannot knock them at all” and “The care and attention [Name]’s had, I couldn’t have picked a better place. I think it’s outstanding. I really feel the team cares."

Staff displayed a kind and caring attitude towards people and understood how to maintain people’s dignity. One staff member told us, “These people are like my family. I care about these people.

We did not receive any negative feedback from partners in relation to people being treated with kindness, compassion and dignity.

We observed staff interacting with people in a respectful and compassionate way throughout the inspection. They were kind, considerate and caring towards people.

People did not always have the opportunity to contribute to their care and express their preferences. People’s individual needs and unique backgrounds were not always considered and incorporated into their care records. However, people were cared for by staff who knew them well. Staff had built trusting relationships with people over time and were aware of people’s likes and dislikes.

Staff knew the importance of knowing people’s preferences. They understood the impact this had on people’s experience.

We observed people being offered a choice of food and drink during mealtimes. Staff offered an alternative to 1 person who continually changed their mind about what they wanted. We also observed people being offered activities however these were not always suited to people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, during an activity we observed 1 person having their hands and nails cared for. However, this person appeared reluctant to have this done and kept trying to pull their hand away.

People’s care records were not always individualised and did not always include people’s wishes, preferences, likes and dislikes.

Not all people got a choice about how they spent their day, and some people had no access to outdoor spaces and fresh air. Some people were not able to access activities that were meaningful to them. Feedback included, “I’m bored all day and night in bed with nothing to do,” “[Name] used to work but [they are] bored. [Name] is so unhappy and is not getting the emotional support. They cry every time I phone. [Name] is not happy,” “I have nothing to do. I just want to be understood” and “I am bored, I watch TV, no staff come in to do activities with me.” There was also mixed feedback regarding choice and variety at meal times. Comments included, “You can have as much as you want to eat, they are not stingy with the food, and you can have a coffee when you want one,” “I don’t know if you get a choice of food, they just put it in front of you but they know what I like and what I don’t like,” and “I get a lot of baked potatoes and omelettes, there needs to be more variety on the menu.” People told us their independence was respected.

People did not always get sufficient social interaction and a choice to access fresh air when they wanted to. The manager told us that the activity co-ordinator would previously go round and visit people who were unable to leave their rooms, however they had recently left, and the service was looking to recruit a replacement. In the meantime, a provision had been made for staff to cover activities. The manager also told us, “For people who are bed bound it is difficult to get them out for fresh air. We can only open a window.” Staff told us activities were available for people and that they were covering activities facilitation as extra shifts until a new activity co-ordinator was recruited.

Activities were on offer for some people. We saw evidence of people having been taken for trips out, evidence of links with the local community and a singer providing entertainment. There had been an improvement in engagement for some people living with dementia. However, some people remained isolated in their rooms with little to no evidence of one to one activity being offered to them. In addition, 1 person with advanced dementia was sat in the same place in the lounge for most of the day with the same programme playing on TV. Whilst staff did engage with the person this was mostly task orientated.

There was evidence that some people had a choice and were involved in making decisions about activities they wanted to engage in. For example, clothes shopping and visiting a railway. However, this was not consistent for all people. In addition, records did not always truly reflect people being actively engaged in activities. For example, 1 person’s records stated that they had watched TV in the lounge for one hour and was engaged throughout the activity. However, a discussion with the person and observation of their position showed they were unable to see the TV from where they were sitting. The person confirmed they were unable to see it.

People told us some staff were more responsive than others and at times had to wait for support from staff.

Staff were able to tell us how they would respond to people’s immediate needs and prioritise someone who was in more urgent need of support. Staff told us they were able to refer to people’s care plans if they were unsure about anything. The manager told us, “If I can see staff running behind, I will support them. So will the deputy manager."

Staff knew people well and understood their needs. They approached people in a caring manner and took action to respond as quickly as they were able. However, during busier times they were not always able to respond immediately. For example, when a sensor mat was activated. In addition, 1 person was shouting out frequently. The manager told us, “They are always like that.” A referral was made to a health care team on the day of inspection however it was not clear what had been done prior to this in order to meet their needs in a timely way.

Staff felt supported and spoke positively about the leadership team. Comments included, “The manager is very approachable and we have a good team, we all support each other,” “I really like [the deputy manager] as a manager, I find them very supportive” and “Managers are always visible, always here and their doors are open."

Systems and processes were in place to support staff wellbeing. There was a ‘star of the month’ recognition initiative in place for staff. This celebrated where staff members had demonstrated particularly good practice, reflective of the values. The provider’s senior management team were often present in the service to support staff.