Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Adelaide House Nursing Home, Haywards Heath.

Adelaide House Nursing Home in Haywards Heath is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 3rd July 2019

Adelaide House Nursing Home is managed by Adelaide Healthcare Limited who are also responsible for 1 other location

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Requires Improvement
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-07-03
    Last Published 2016-08-12

Local Authority:

    West Sussex

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

22nd June 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 22 June 2016 and was unannounced. Adelaide House is a care home with nursing that is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 40 older people. The property is a large Victorian house with accommodation on three floors, offices on the fourth floor and a shaft lift connecting each floor.

At the time of the inspection there were 34 people living at the home and there was a registered manager in post. 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 that staff were caring, kind and attentive to their needs. One person said, “The staff are so nice, it’s a lovely happy atmosphere here.” We saw many examples of positive interactions between staff and the people they were caring for however, we did find some areas of practice that needed to improve. People’s privacy and dignity was not always respected. People were not always given their medicines in a discreet way to protect their privacy. Every person was receiving their drinks in a plastic beaker, one person said, “I have to use a baby’s cup now.” We have identified these as areas of practice that need to improve to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

In other areas of practice we noted that staff did respect people’s privacy and dignity. Confidential information was kept securely and people told us that staff were respectful. One person said, “They treat me nicely and make sure the door is closed before helping me to be undressed.” Staff spoke warmly about the people they cared for and demonstrated that they knew them well. People told us that they were involved in making decisions about their care and that they felt their views were listened to.

People told us they felt safe living at Adelaide House and that there were enough suitable staff to meet their needs. One person said, “There’s always plenty of staff around,” another said, “The staff make me feel secure here.” People’s medicines were managed safely and they received their medicines when they needed to. Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities with regard to keeping people safe. Risks to people were assessed and managed and any safeguarding issues were reported in line with the provider’s policy.

People and their relatives had confidence in the staff. They told us that staff had the skills and knowledge they needed to be effective in their roles. A relative said, “The manager choses staff extremely carefully, even new staff know what they have to be doing.” Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and they had opportunities for training. A number of staff had received additional training in subjects relevant to the needs of people they were caring for, including dementia care and diabetes.

Staff were able to tell us about the importance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its relevance to their role. One staff member said, “We have to assume people have capacity to make decisions, but if they lack capacity we have to make a decision on their behalf.” People’s consent to care and treatment was sought and documentation was thorough and demonstrated compliance with the MCA and DoLS.

People told us they were happy with the food at Adelaide House and that they had plenty to eat. People were offered drink and snacks throughout the day and there was a clear emphasis on ensuring that people’s nutritional and hydration needs were met. People were supported to access health care services and received ongoing health care support. A visiting health care professional spoke highly of the care provided saying, “The staff recognise when someone has deteriorated, they know what signs to look out for and call us quickly when they are worried.”

Care and support re

12th August 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

One inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. The home could accommodate 40 people and, when we visited, there were 32 people living in the home.

We spoke with five people living in the home and with four of their relatives. We looked in detail at five care plans. At the time of our inspection the manager was on holiday and so we spoke with the deputy manager, who was in charge, a nurse and a carer. We also spoke with the cook, the activities coordinator, a GP and a Physiotherapist who were visiting.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The manager conducted pre-assessments to ensure the right level of care was available and staff were guided in their work by detailed care plans. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff were trained and competent to deliver a safe level of care. This meant people were receiving a safe service.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

We found staff had received appropriate training and regular supervision to ensure that their skills were up-to-date and appropriate to the needs of the people living at the home. This included regular updates in areas such as manual handling, first aid and fire safety. There was additional training in areas such as end of life care and leadership skills.

Staff were using effective practices, for example, to prevent falls. We also found care staff sought advice, where appropriate, from the qualified nursing staff at the home, the manager and from other external health care professionals. The home was providing an effective service.

Is the service caring?

We observed the interaction between care staff and people using the service and found care was delivered with compassion and consideration. One person who lived in the home said, "The staff are fabulous and care for me very well".

One relative we spoke with said, “The staff are attentive and caring. We always find that there is somebody to sit with him.”

Is the service responsive?

We saw that staff responded promptly to call bells and helped people with eating, drinking and moving about the home. We found evidence in the care plans that staff contacted appropriate healthcare professionals when required and informed relatives of any changes in health or welfare.

The provider invited and listened to feedback and made changes where they were reasonably practical. Recent changes included the addition of a ramp leading to the garden from the home. People we spoke with said they enjoyed the food and drink and we saw that the food they received suited their individual needs. The provider was responsive to the needs of people living in the home.

Is the service well-led?

The home was well managed with a qualified team of professional care and nursing staff. The staff we spoke with said that they felt guided and supported in their work.

The provider conducted regular internal audits of the service and the care plans.There was also an annual survey to take feedback and suggestions from people who lived in the home, their relatives and other healthcare professionals. Feedback from the relatives we spoke with was positive and the people living in the home told us they were happy with the care and treatment.

25th September 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

As part of this inspection we looked at what action the service had taken to become compliant with cleanliness and infection control following concerns identified at our previous inspection in March 2013.

During the inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, five care staff, the manager and three visiting professionals. People told us they liked living there. Comments included "Very caring", "Staff always come if I press the call bell" and "I like it here. Staff talk to you and we have a laugh". Visiting professionals said "The home is brilliant, fantastic", "Staff are kind and thoughtful" and "Management are open and honest".

We found that people were encouraged to make decisions for themselves. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. However, there were not always copies of the relevant paperwork in people's care records.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans were kept up to date and nursing support was provided as described in care plans.

We observed that all parts of the home were kept clean. There were systems in place to make sure that hygiene and infection control was maintained to an appropriate standard.

Care staff got the support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. Training was kept up to date and staff had regular supervision meetings with a manager.

25th March 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with six people who used the service and two of their representatives. We spoke with the registered manager, a nurse, four care workers and a GP.

People were involved in decisions about their care. One person told us “We discussed the help required and likes and dislikes.” A relative said that they “have copies of the care plan at home. From time to time I ask questions and they answer them.”

The care needs of people were assessed and individual care plans were made that met their needs and minimised risks. People who used the service were happy and said they received the help they needed. One said they were “very happy…content – very much so.” A relative said “the atmosphere is right.” The care staff understood how to provide dignified care and people told us they were treated with respect.

People’s health was monitored and actions taken to maintain well-being. A GP said the staff were “very good when residents are not quite right.”

The provider had not maintained the appropriate standards of cleanliness of some equipment. This presented a risk of infection.

The provider had undertaken all appropriate checks before staff began work. They ensured nurses maintained current registration.

The provider used a variety of methods to seek the views of people who used the service and other stakeholders. These were used to inform developments in the home. There were adequate checks and processes in place to ensure that the home remained safe.

 

 

Latest Additions: