You are here

Archived: The Old Hall Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 January 2014
Date of Publication: 6 February 2014
Inspection Report published 06 February 2014 PDF

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

Meeting 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 6 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and sent a questionnaire to people who use the service. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with five people who used the service. Overall they seemed very happy with the quality of service and the way they were treated by staff. They made comments such as: “It couldn’t be better”; “The staff are very thoughtful, kind and generous”; “I haven’t heard a cross word since I’ve been here.” All the people we spoke with said they particularly liked the friendly attitude of the staff. They also commented on the range of activities on offer, which included regular outings to places like local garden centres, the seaside and local towns. One person said: “We are not allowed to stagnate in our rooms.”

None of the people we spoke with said they could think of anything that could be improved apart from the fact that at weekends the reception desk was unmanned. They said this worried them because it meant anyone could walk into the building and there was no-one to greet visitors. We asked the manager to comment on these concerns and they said that the problem was compounded by there being two entrances to the home, and that some visitors would use a different entrance to the main one. They said that because people were free to come and go as they pleased they could not lock the main doors, which would solve the problem of anyone being able to walk into the home.

Throughout the day we were able to observe how staff engaged with people who use the service. At lunch time we watched as staff assisted some people to the two dining rooms and noticed that they were respectful towards them and did not try and rush them. We noticed that whilst most of the people in the dining rooms were able to feed themselves, five people, who were sat apart from the others, needed more assistance. We watched as one staff member helped to gently spoon feed one person, and cut up the food for another person so they could eat it more easily. As we walked around the building during the day we noticed several people being attended to in their rooms and we saw that on all occasions staff were polite and respectful towards them.

From our conversations with people who use the service and our observations we were satisfied that people were generally happy with their level of care and that staff were engaging in an appropriate and sensitive manner with people. This meant that people and their relatives could be reassured that they were receiving care that was both safe and of a sufficient quality to promote their health and wellbeing.

We looked at how people’s needs were assessed, managed and reviewed. The people we spoke with said that when they had been admitted to the home staff had sat down with them to discuss their particular needs. Two of the staff members we spoke with said they were actively involved in the initial assessment of new people and would go through the whole admission process with the person and their relatives. They said the whole assessment process revolved around the person’s individual choices.

We looked at the initial assessment forms for four people who used the service, which were contained within their main care plan folders. We noted that the assessments covered a number of key areas including breathing, cardio-vascular function, communication, and eating and drinking.

We looked at four people’s care plan folders and noted that each one contained an admission and assessment form; a set of individualised care plans, called Activities of Living (AOLs), tailored to needs of each person; daily notes specific to each AOL; and a separate clinical notes section. Some of the individual care plans also had risk assessments attached to them.

The manager explained that the main part of the care plan was built up from the information provided in the initial assessment document and from working with the person after they had arrived in the home. They said that the individual care plans were based on the activities of living philosophy, which looked at how well a person could function in relation to a sp