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

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Not met this standard

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 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 did not experience care, treatment and support that met their needs. There was not a full assessment of the risks to the person who used the service to ensure their safety and welfare. People's activity needs were not being met.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at three care plans. We saw that there was a detailed assessment of needs carried out prior to admission. This looked at the dependency level of the person, as well as their needs relating to personal hygiene, nutrition, continence and skin integrity. This ensured that the service was able to meet the needs of the person.

We found that relevant risk assessments had not always been carried out. For example, in the ‘Multi-disciplinary Record’ in one care plan (which detailed attendances of external professionals) we found that a pressure sore was being treated. However, there was no risk assessment relating to the person’s skin integrity and therefore, no information concerning the management of the risk. Similarly, we saw care plans which referred to a person living with diet controlled diabetes and incontinence, yet there was no risk assessment in place to provide information as to how the risk was to be managed. This meant that care and treatment was not planned in a way which met the needs of the person who used the service.

We were informed by the Registered Manager that a person was employed by the service on four mornings a week to co-ordinate activities. This person was not scheduled to be working at the service on the day of our inspection.

We saw people watching television and a person reading the newspaper. Music was being played. We asked people if they thought there was enough to do at the service. One person said that they liked listening to people singing at the service, whereas the other two people we spoke with said that there wasn’t much to do. One of these people said they were, “Bored stiff.”

We looked at three 2012 feedback forms that had been completed by people who used the service or their relatives. These all raised issues with the lack of activities at the service. One said, ‘[I] feel more could be done to help keep minds active – more activities.’ This demonstrated that people’s activity needs were not being met.