Adejom Staffing Care

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

The provider was unable to evidence people were involved in their care. There was no evidence people were involved in care planning, or their feedback was used to improve the quality of the service. People were not supported to be as independent as possible. Care plans did not promote people’s independence and highlight what they were able to do for themselves. The provider was unable to demonstrate how they supported people who could have been at risk of discrimination based on their disabilities or protected characteristics.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

While some of the relatives we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with the care their loved one received, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. A relative told us they did not receive any feedback about the care their loved one received. Relatives were not asked for feedback about the care their loved one received.

The provider could not evidence how they listened or involved people in the service. No action was taken in response to concerns raised and the provider did not analyse information to understand people’s concerns. For example, one person complained that a different staff, to their regular staff attended without notice. There was no information to detail how the provider responded to this concern and if the person was satisfied with the response.

Processes to ensure people and their loved ones were involved in their care, and their voices were heard were ineffective. The provider told us they had obtained feedback from some people and their loved ones. However, the information we reviewed was completed by the same staff member, and all the relatives gave the same or similar responses. There was no review of the information provided to implement improvements. The provider’s complaints procedures were ineffective. The provider did not use concerns as an opportunity to improve the service.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were not able to share specific feedback about this quality statement.

Although some staff were positive about the management and culture of the service. This did not reflect our findings. The provider was not open and transparent when sharing information. They could not demonstrate how they supported people who may face discrimination or be disadvantaged because of their disabilities or other protected characteristics.

The providers oversight of the care provided was poor. They had not identified when people had been harmed or were at risk of emotional or physical harm. The provider had no understanding of the experiences of people to ensure their outcomes were positive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.