You are here

Archived: West Lodge Residential Care Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 September 2012
Date of Publication: 19 October 2012
Inspection Report published 19 October 2012 PDF | 82.25 KB

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

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 September 2012, 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.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

During our inspection, we looked at three care plans. We saw that people were offered appropriate support in relation to their care and treatment and that they were provided with opportunities to maintain their independence. For example, one person's care plan stated, 'Has a normal diet but requires food cut up.' There were considerate social aims and objectives to promote community involvement such as, 'try to encourage [the person who used the service] to mix with other residents [as they don't] seem to mix well at the moment.'

The cook informed us that they spoke with the people who used the service every day to establish what they would like to eat for their lunch or their dinner. Whilst we were at the service, we saw people eating their choice of lunch either fish and chips or cooked meat. This demonstrated that people could express their views in relation to their food choices.

We saw sensitive interactions during the lunchtime, demonstrating that people were treated with consideration and respect. For example, we saw people being supported to eat their lunch as members of staff offered encouraging words and gestures. Staff were seen to understand people's needs, cutting up their food and offering serviettes as required.

We asked staff how they ensured that people were involved in their care. One person said, "I can understand what they want. I look for signals such as trying to get out of their chair when they want the toilet." Another member of staff said, "[I] communicate with them. I know what they prefer...If they do not understand, I show them. If I think they want something, I ask, such as toilet or water." This ensured that people who used the service were able to participate in making decisions relating to their care.

We spoke with two people who used the service and one relative of a person who used the service. People said that they felt involved in their care and that staff treated them as they would like to be treated. However, one relative said, "There is a strong routine: get up at between 8.00am and 8.30am, have a bath every Tuesday. Drinks are at set times but they will get you one if you are thirsty." A person who used the service said, "Getting up time is 8.00am." Another person said, "I don't get given cornflakes when I want them. I get given porridge." The provider may wish to note that it would promote further choice and autonomy if people were offered more flexibility and choice in their morning routines.