The Firs Care Home with Nursing

< Back to the complete list of standards

Our latest report on this standard published on 9 October 2012

We inspected on 11 September 2012 during a routine inspection

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 11 September 2012, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

The people we spoke with said that staff respected their personal preferences such as when to rise in the morning and when to go to bed. They also felt that their needs were met at The Firs, although one of the people we spoke with thought that their religious needs, “could be better met.” The relative we spoke with told us, “I’m very happy with [my parent’s] care and [my parent] is very happy here.”

People felt that a range of suitable activities were offered and described some of these. One person described the activities as, “stimulating.” Another person told us, “I choose not to join in…I like reading.”

The members of care staff we spoke with were confident that they knew what people’s needs were. They said this was through reading their personal care plans, which guided the care they provided, talking with people and at shift hand over meetings. They felt that all residents’ needs were being met by the service and one staff member added, “there’s a lot of love here.”

We read the care plans of five people who use the service. These documents were generally accurate, up to date and were being reviewed regularly. They showed that people’s health needs were well monitored and their needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. We found that staff took an approach, to the people who use the service, which was centred on their individual needs. The provider may find it useful to note that this person centred approach was not fully reflected in the service’s personal documents. Care plans did not include a record of people’s personal preferences or likes and dislikes. However, the manager showed us person centred records that had been developed for 28 of the people who use the service. These were called ‘This is me’.

We found that a range of risk assessments were being recorded and reviewed regularly and these included risk management procedures. The provider may find it useful to note that not all of these risk assessments provided staff with enough information to minimise risk. For example, one person’s manual handling risk assessment referred to the need to use a hoist ‘when [the person is] on the floor’. There were no details about the type of sling required, techniques needed or number of staff.

The staff members we spoke with showed an awareness of the benefits of recording risk assessments as a way of identifying and minimising risks to the people who use the service. They gave us examples of the kind of risks people were exposed to and what staff needed to do to manage these.

The members of staff that we spoke with were positive about the range of activities provided to the people who use the service and described some of these to us. One staff member told us that the activities were, “brilliant.” They indicated that some activities were based on people’s personal interests. The previous activities coordinator had left the service although a newly appointed person was due to take up this role soon.

There was a generally relaxed atmosphere within the service, during this inspection, and we observed staff relating sensitively to the people who use the service. We also observed a person’s dignity and privacy being respected, following their collapse in the entrance hall, through the use of screens.

< Back to the complete list of standards