We carried out a review of the data available to us about Adeline House Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Adeline House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Adeline House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care. The home can accommodate up to 40 people with differing needs, including younger people and people with a physical disability and older people. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people using the service, some of whom were living with dementia.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had a safeguarding procedure in place and maintained a record of concerns raised. Staff received training in safeguarding and knew what action to take to keep people safe. Risks associated with people's care had been identified and actions taken to mitigate risks. The providers recruitment policy assisted them to employ suitable staff. There were sufficient staff available to respond to people's needs and people were unhurried. People received their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Care plans were written in a person centred way. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Activities and social stimulation were organised and provided by an activity co-ordinator.
The provider had a complaints procedure and people we spoke with felt comfortable raising concerns.
The deputy manager and clinical lead were managing the home in the absence of the registered manager and were working well together. A range of audits took place to monitor the quality of the home. However, these did not always evidence what action had been taken to address issues.
Staff worked alongside healthcare professionals and in partnership with others to ensure people received appropriate support.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 9 April 2019).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to staffing, person centred care, and the leadership of the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, responsive and well led only.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The home was very clean and well maintained. The provider had taken swift action when audits identified areas for improvement. Staff worked well as a team to ensure the home maintained good infection control.
Visitors to the home were required to follow infection control procedures and were asked to complete a lateral flow test. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available. Visitors were asked to complete a form to confirm they felt well and had not been in contact with anyone testing positive with COVID-19.
Professional visitors were required to show a negative lateral flow test and evidence of COVID-19 vaccination.
A programme was in place to ensure people using the service and staff were tested in line with government guidance. Action was swiftly taken when anyone tested positive with COVID-19.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The home was very clean and well maintained throughout.
There was clear and accessible infection prevention signage around the home and clear communication with staff reinforced good hygiene practices. There were personal protective equipment (PPE) stations and hand sanitising points appropriately placed around the home. There was a plentiful supply of PPE, such as disposable masks, gloves and aprons.
People isolating in their rooms had regular contact with staff, who wore PPE appropriately. Staff also helped people to maintain links with their family and friends by window visits, telephone and virtual, on-line chats.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Adeline House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. It is a single storey premises situated in the market town of Thorne near Doncaster. The home can accommodate up to 40 people with differing needs, including younger people and people with a physical disability. At the time of our visit Adeline House was providing care to 24 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. Nursing care is also provided.
People’s experience of using this service:
At this inspection we found the registered manager and provider had acted on the feedback from the last inspection to make improvements to the service. We found evidence to support an overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.
People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received at Adeline House. Their comments included, “I feel safe and I’m settled here,” and “There is a lovely feeling here.”
Since the last inspection refurbishment and redecoration work had been completed which had greatly improved the appearance of the home. The environment was clean, bright and homely. The registered manager and staff had also worked closely with other healthcare professionals to improve the systems for good infection prevention and control.
People were safe because there were effective risk assessments in place, and systems to keep them safe from abuse or avoidable harm. Also, medicines were managed safely and people were supported to ensure their health needs were met.
Observations and discussions with staff indicated there were enough staff on duty to make sure people’s needs were met in a timely manner. The service relied on regular agency staff to fill gaps in the rota and further recruitment was underway.
Systems in place ensured the needs of people were identified and respected. People, and those who were important to them, were at the heart of the service and were encouraged to be involved in decisions and developing their support.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were provided with a varied diet that met their needs and preferences. They told us they liked the food offered at the home. We saw meals, drinks and snacks were provided throughout the day and these took into consideration people’s individual likes and dislikes.
The registered manager, nurses and care staff recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. Staff also maintained people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care and support.
We spent time observing staff interacting with people and found they were kind, caring and supported people in a sensitive way. Staff were very patient and gave people time and opportunities to remain independent.
Each person had a care plan. However, not all care plans had been reviewed and updated to reflect the current needs of people who used the service. We discussed this with the registered manager and the registered provider and they took immediate and responsive action to ensure all care plans were updated in a timely manner.
There was a complaints procedure and we saw a system was in place to log any complaints
received. People who used the service knew how to make a complaint.
The home worked well with local authorities who commissioned the service and health care professionals to achieve the best outcomes for people.
Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and continually improve the quality of the service provided.
Rating at last inspection:
Requires improvement (report published on 25 June 2018).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Adeline House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. It is a single storey premises situated in the market town of Thorne near Doncaster, and is in easy reach of local shops and other local amenities. The home can accommodate up to 40 people with differing needs, including younger people and people with a physical disability, but at the time of our visit it was providing care to 23 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. Nursing care is also provided.
The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they were happy living at Adeline House and praised the care that staff provided. However, the home’s décor looked tired and shabby, with some areas needing redecorating or repair. Following our visit the registered manager confirmed areas needing improvement had been prioritised and plans to address the shortfalls we found, and the general décor were in place, with the most urgent work already completed.
People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff had a clear understanding of safeguarding people, and care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people were safe. Risks associated with people’s care were identified and appropriately managed.
The registered provider had a safe recruitment system in place to ensure staff employed were suitable to carry out their roles and responsibilities in a safe manner. Overall staff were trained and supported to develop their skills and provide people with the standard of care they required. Where shortfalls had been identified action was being taken to address these.
Staffing numbers were adequate to meet the needs of the people living at the home at the time of our inspection, but one person told us they sometimes had to wait for a long time for staff to answer their call bell.
Medication was managed safely and administered by staff who had completed appropriate training.
People were supported to receive a healthy diet, however, we noted the dining experience people received could have been better, but the registered manager was trying to address this.
Staff supported people in an inclusive, caring, responsive and friendly manner. They encouraged them to be as independent as possible, while taking into consideration their abilities and any risks associated with their care. The people we spoke with made positive comments about how staff delivered care and said they were happy with the way the home was managed.
People’s needs had been assessed and care plans drawn up to highlight where they needed support, providing guidance to staff on how best to do this. However, we found at least one person’s plan had not been updated following a recent change in their needs. This was actioned immediately.
There was a range of activities and events people were supported to take part in.
Various checks had taken place to highlight areas for improvement, but these new audits needed to be embedded into practice to ensure on-going improvement. They had identified some of the shortfalls we found during our visit, and action plans were in place to address them. However, other areas, such as the general environment, had not been recently assessed to promote improvement. The registered manager completed this audit the day after our visit and produced an action plan to address the shortfalls in a timely way, many of which were actioned in the week after our inspection visit.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.