Adalah Residential Rest Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The registered manager told us people were fully assessed before they started using the service and this was regularly reviewed with them. Before people started using the service their care and support needs were discussed with them and their relatives. A person-centred care package was then put in place and regularly reviewed. Staff had access to up-to-date information on people’s care in their care plans.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff knew people well and how they wished to be supported with food and drink. People were given options at mealtimes and were able to choose what they wanted to eat. Assessments were in place to help staff recognise the support people required, and staff had undergone training to recognise if people were choking and how they could intervene. Where required the service worked with speech and language therapists to ensure people were receiving the correct support with their food and nutrition.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff had access to the information they needed to work with people, and where required helped them safely transition between healthcare teams. The registered manager told us they had developed good links with the health professionals. Where appropriate staff supported people to attend health appointments. Staff meetings, daily meetings, and supervision sessions were all in place to ensure staff were provided with current information to work together to support people.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were supported to access healthcare professionals to reduce the risk of health deterioration and promote their independence. A relative told us, “The staff are excellent, and they know [relative] and I have always been satisfied with what they do for [relative], they know them very well and their needs. They know how to care for [relative] continence issues and they do this respectfully.” However, another relative told us, I am not really informed about her healthcare needs. I don’t get to know information without asking them.” Another relative told us, “I think generally they know what [relative] needs. [Relative] is type 2 diabetic, and I am not sure that [relative] always gets appropriate foods, [relative] might be offered cake.” Staff attended regular meetings to ensure they had all the information they needed to support people and involve them with their health. Staff completed referrals to health professionals such as the GP, dietician, speech and language team and district nurses. People’s records contained information about any health conditions and referrals people might need to promote good health. Staff received training to support them to recognise early signs and symptoms of deteriorating health.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both people’s and clinical expectations. The registered manager told us they had several systems in place to help them monitor outcomes for people. This included asking people for their feedback through meetings, telephone calls and the completion of surveys on their care experience. However, survey results had not yet been analysed for themes and trends to see where improvements were needed and could be made.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the need to gain consent for care and to encourage people to make decisions for themselves. Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidance The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. People had capacity to make day-to-day decisions. We found staff practice reflected the principles of the MCA. People were encouraged to make their own decisions, while still minimising risk. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the MCA 2005 framework.