You are here

Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 June 2011
Date of Publication: 8 July 2011
Inspection Report published 8 July 2011 PDF

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

Our judgement

People had individualised care plans in place and were able to make decisions about their day to day lives. People had their privacy, dignity and independence respected.

User experience

People told us that they are able to make decisions about their day to day care and that staff respect their privacy, dignity and independence.

Other evidence

There had been a number of recent safeguarding investigations concerning allegations about staff shouting at or being disrespectful towards people living at the home. These had all been investigated by the local authority safeguarding adult’s team and the providers had taken appropriate action following these investigations, including disciplinary action.

We spoke to the manager and the provider and they acknowledged that there had been a culture of disrespect from some staff towards people living at the home. They believed that these issues were being dealt with and that the atmosphere at the home was improving.

We also spoke to four members of staff who told us that they worked well together as a team and that they understood the need to be respectful towards people living at the home, as well as promoting independence, dignity, choice and privacy.

People had care plans in place that reflected their individual needs and preferences. There was evidence that care plans were reviewed regularly and that formal reviews took place where people had the opportunity to express their views about the care they received. Care plans also recorded whether people would like to be assisted with personal care by a male or female carer; this evidenced respect for a person’s privacy and dignity.

All staff had undertaken training on equality and diversity and the manager told us that he intended to arrange training for staff on ‘dignity’ when all mandatory training had been completed. The manager also said that he intended to arrange a resident’s forum to give people living at the home the opportunity to express their opinions about the care being provided.

The manager showed us surveys that had been distributed to people living at the home and other relevant people (such as care professionals and relatives) to monitor their satisfaction with the service provided. Most responses had been received and the manager told us that he would be evaluating the information and then taking any remedial action that was required.

The manager told us in a Provider Compliance Assessment (PCA) that was sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in December 2010 that advocacy services had been sourced so that people living at the home could access these if needed. On the day of our site visit we saw that information about advocacy services was displayed and that people were made aware of the support available to them.

We saw that patient passports had been completed for people; these are documents that contain essential information about a person’s individual care needs and wishes. People can take them to hospital appointments and admissions so that health care staff have easy access to this information.