Aden House 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

At our last inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment, the provider had improved, and this key question is now rated requires improvement. However, we identified a continued breach of regulation in relation to person-centred care. People’s care was not always person-centred. Care records lacked personalisation and some people’s rooms were stark with no personal items or decoration. Systems and processes in place did not always support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. Whilst some improvement had been made, some people did not have access to information in a format that was suited to their needs. However, people’s personal care needs were met, and they were well presented. Mealtimes in communal areas were a pleasant experience with a relaxed atmosphere. Systems in place supported continuity of care when people needed to access other services. Meetings and surveys were in place for people and relatives to give feedback, and positive feedback was obtained regarding the provision of end of life care at the service.

This service scored 61 (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 care was not always person-centred and support was sometimes task orientated. Feedback from people and relatives included, “All the staff are friendly but a lot concentrate on tasks” and “I think they have had good training but they don’t seem to realise they are dealing with someone’s mum or sister so I think the training needs updating. I have not seen them lose their temper with anyone but the care isn’t person-centred, it revolves around the tasks.” Most people had life stories in place. However, people had not always participated in the formulation of these. In addition, the documents were frequently pinned to the wall and out of reach of the people who they belonged to. One person told us they had not seen theirs before, “It’s so good. I’ve never even seen it. To think I’ve been bored, and I could have been adding to this."

The provider had not made sufficient progress in some areas requiring improvement in order to ensure all aspects of care, including the environment was person-centred. A leader told us difficulties in recruiting to a maintenance role had impacted on environmental improvement progress. Staff were able to explain about person-centred care. One staff member told us, “It’s about concentrating on the needs of that particular person in the way they like to be supported, not because it’s easy for you but because it’s right for them."

Not all people were at the centre of their care and treatment. Care records lacked personalisation and care planning was not always done in collaboration with people and their relatives. Life stories and histories were still not being implemented into care plans. The provider had an action plan in place which included improving person-centred care planning and the involvement of relatives in the process. Some people’s rooms were stark and lacked any personalisation. Since the assessment the provider has started to take action to address this. People appeared well presented and their personal care needs were met. The lunch time experience was pleasant and relaxed. People in the dining room were shown plates and asked what they would like to eat. Staff offered an alternative to 1 person who continually changed their mind about what they wanted.

People told us they had access to other health professionals when needed. Health professionals were in the service supporting people during our assessment. For example, the district nurse and the continence care nurse.

Leaders and staff knew the process for referring to various health professionals to get support and advice.

Visiting health professionals gave positive feedback regarding the referral process. One professional told us 1 of the leaders had approached them for assistance in improving 1 person’s care plan.

Systems and processes were in place to support continuity of care and to ensure people had access to relevant health professionals when they needed them.

People did not consistently have access to information relating to their care. For example, care plans. Where information was available it was at times physically out of reach for some people who were cared for in bed. For example, life histories. Some improvement had been made regarding adherence to the Accessible Information Standard and adapting information for people. For example, adapted information had been developed and was ready to be implemented for 1 person whose first language was not English. However, accessible and easy read information was not yet available for people living with dementia. The provider informed us there were plans to implement this going forward.

Staff and leaders had not fully understood and embedded the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. The deputy manager had plans to further incorporate the Accessible Information Standard and implement easy read and adapted information for people.

Systems and processes in place did not consistently ensure the Accessible Information Standard was applied for all people, in line with their needs and preferences.

People and relatives were not always involved in care planning and reviews of care. However, people told us the provider would listen to feedback and that ideas and suggestions were shared.

Staff and leaders had not taken steps to fully listen to and involve all people. The provider told us about meetings and surveys that were being held to obtain feedback from people. There was a plan in place to improve the involvement of relatives in care planning.

Systems and processes did not consistently support the involvement of people in their care. However, processes were in place to obtain feedback from people and relatives about the service via meetings and surveys. There was a ‘you said we did’ board displaying improvements the service had made as a result of people’s suggestions. For example, having Caribbean food and visiting the light railway.

People requiring certain adaptations did not consistently have equity in accessing this. For example, people with differing communication needs. People spoke positively about being able to access services when they needed to.

Staff had some awareness of barriers people could face when accessing health services.

We did not receive any negative feedback from partners regarding people’s equity in access.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure people were supported to experience equality in the care and support they received. However, they were not always effective. For example, information was not always readily available for people in an adapted format, and further improvement was required to ensure people’s care was person-centred.

Not all people were given the opportunities and choices which would positively impact their experience. For example, collaboratively planning their care and being able to participate in activities that meant something to them personally.

Staff were respectful of people’s differences. Their interactions with people showed an awareness of valuing differences in others.

Systems and processes in place did not always support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. Care was not always tailored to meet people’s individual needs and preferences. The provider had an equality, diversity, and human rights policy in place. Staff had also participated in equality and diversity training.

One relative spoke about their experience of their loved one receiving end of life care. They told us, “The care and attention [Name]’s had, I couldn’t have picked a better place. I think it’s outstanding."

Staff were providing end of life care to 1 person. Positive feedback was received regarding the care staff were providing. This included feedback relating to leaders at the service. A relative told us, “When I come I still see management around, they’re still involved."

People had end of life care plans in place. However, not all were person-centred and some required further details to reflect individual wishes and preferences.