The Care Quality Commission checks whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting government standards. Visit our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Care UK Community Partnerships Limited - 330a Guildford Road
- 330A Guildford Road, Bisley, Woking, Surrey, GU24 9AD
- (01483) 799261
- See on a map
Type of service
Care home without nursing
Local Authority Area
People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)
Our latest report on this standard published on 1 June 2013
We inspected on 14 May 2013 during a routine inspection
We checked that people who use this service:
- Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.
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 14 May 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff. We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.
Reasons for our judgement
People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
We sampled two people’s care plans. Both of them contained detailed information about people’s individual care needs and how staff were to manage these. We saw actions required to best support people and what tasks staff needed to help people with. We saw a part of the care plan entitled the things I can do and the support I need. This section was separated into individual areas and contained detailed information about people’s abilities and how staff were to support them in those areas. This included information such as how to assist people with personal care, nutrition and daily living. This meant people’s care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
One person we spoke with said; “My relative’s needs are being cared for”. Another person we spoke to told us their relative had greatly improved since moving into the home. A third person we spoke with said; “My relative is always well looked after. The staff are all well trained and know how to take care of my relative”.
In both care plans we sampled we saw evidence that guidance had been sought from healthcare professionals such as doctors, specialists and community nurses. We saw evidence that information gained from those professionals had been used to plan people’s care. One person we spoke with said; “They are really good at taking my relative to the doctor and to see specialists”. This meant people’s care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance.
Each care plan contained detailed personal risk assessments for people. We saw these had been regularly reviewed and updated. We saw risk assessments had been created in relation to mobility, fire, personal care, manual handling, falls, abuse, eating and drinking and psychological harm. Each risk assessment was personal and contained actions for staff to best eliminate or reduce the risks identified. We saw specific health action plans had been created for people in relation to specific health issues they may have such as anxiety, dietary disorders or continence issues. This meant care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.
We spoke with the registered manager in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They told us no one in the home had been subjected to a deprivation of liberty authorisation. They explained to us the occasions on which they would consider an application to the local authority and what processes they would follow. They also told us all staff had received training regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decisions. This meant people who used the service were only deprived of their liberty when this had been authorised by the Court of Protection, or by a Supervisory Body under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
We saw the service had conducted regular risk assessments of the premises including fire risk assessments and accidents and incidents risk assessments. We saw documentation relating to fire safety and emergency planning. We saw the service had an emergency admission to hospital procedure as well as fire procedure. We saw evidence fire drills had taken place and there was also information relating to basic life support procedures. There were fire exit signs clearly displayed around the house as well as fire extinguishers, fire blankets and first aid kits. This meant the service had arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.