DCA Alderwood

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

We saw evidence of staff responding appropriately to people’s immediate needs. The service worked alongside partners to prepare people for changes in their care provision. People and their relatives were asked for feedback on the service and had access to advocacy where needed. However, there was limited evidence that goals and aspirations had been considered in care planning. People’s views and interests were not always represented in plans for support and these plans were not always available in accessible formats.

This service scored 68 (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 were unsure how much people had been involved in care planning. They told us that their interests were not always incorporated into support plans.

Staff told us how they supported people to make decisions about their own care and support. They told us that most people were able to make choices when given several options.

People were supported individually. For example, on the day we visited the service one person had decided they wished to go out shopping. The staff were able to respond straight away and supported the person to go to the shop. The same person told me about their plans for the rest of the day. Staff confirmed the person was in control as to what they wanted to do each day.

People’s relatives did not have any feedback to share around this quality statement.

Staff did not have any feedback to share in this area. The manager was asked to provide a transition plan for a person who was moving to another service but only the new provider’s plan was shared.

Partners did not provide any specific feedback in this area.

The manager spoke with us about working alongside other providers when new placements had been found for people. Staff confirmed they were working alongside staff from another provider in preparation for one person moving placement to be nearer their family. However, the provider did not share their written plans for the transition.

People’s relatives told us it wasn’t always clear how much involvement people had in support planning. Plans were not available in easy read formats for people with learning disabilities.

Staff had no feedback to share on this quality statement.

People had communication passports which provided staff with information as to how best to communicate with them. The provider had information in easy read formats around making a complaint and keeping safe. People also used pictorial cards to enable them to communicate. There was limited evidence that care plans and risk assessments were available in accessible formats.

People’s relatives told us that they are asked for feedback and have opportunities to review paperwork. They told us they knew how to make a complaint if necessary. One relative told us they felt the service did not always act on feedback given.

Staff told us people had access to an advocate.

We saw in shared houses there were regular house meetings which involved the people and staff. People were able to talk about any activities they wished to do, what food people may like and raise any concerns they may have. There was information about making a complaint. The service had carried out satisfaction surveys with people’s families and had made changes as a result of feedback received.

People’s relatives did not have specific feedback to share on this quality statement.

Staff did not have specific feedback to share in this area.

The provider ensured people had access to the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw from case notes when someone required emergency treatment the staff had supported the person to attend A&E and ensured they received the attention and treatment they needed. The manager told us they had had to speak with health professionals to ensure the person received the follow up treatment they required.

People did not give any specific feedback in this area.

Staff did not give any specific feedback in this area.

The provider ensured people had access to the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw from case notes when someone required emergency treatment the staff had supported the person to attend A&E and ensured they received the attention and treatment they needed. The manager told us they had had to speak with health professionals to ensure the person received the follow up treatment they required.

People’s relatives told us people’s goals and aspirations for the future were not always taken into account. They told us that some people struggled to think about future aspirations but that the service did not support them to do this either.

Staff did not have any specific feedback in this area.

Support plans contained limited information on people’s goals and aspirations. We saw no information in relation to planning for any important life changes, including at the end of their life.