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 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

Our judgement

People experience effective, safe and appropriate care that is designed to meet their individual needs.

User experience

People told us that they are well cared for by staff and that they feel safe at the home.

Other evidence

People living at the home had individual needs assessments, risk assessment and care plans in place. The manager was in the process of updating all care plans. The old style care plans that we saw contained essential information and the new care plans expanded on this by including information that was personalised and that promoted individualised care.

Care plans included sections on mobility, dressing/undressing, personal care, social interaction, medication, dental care and skin integrity. Where assessments identified an area of concern, appropriate risk assessments had been undertaken such as the ‘waterlow’ pressure care assessment and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). In addition to this, we saw risk assessments for bathing/showering, medication, mobility, social interaction, hot substances, the use of Steredent and the use of hoists.

Care plans had been reviewed on a monthly basis and updated as necessary. We saw one care plan that had been updated because it had been identified that the person needed the support of two carers where they had previously needed the support of one. Formal reviews of a person’s care plan had taken place; the person concerned, family members, care management and care staff had been invited to attend.

Daily diary sheets were included with care plans to record the care provided each day, including food and fluid intake, any activities undertaken, any visitors seen and any areas of concern. In addition to this, there was a personal care checklist in place that recorded the individual care that people received; this was to ensure that people actually received the assistance with personal care that was recorded in their care plan.

Any contact with health care professionals, including the person’s GP, had been recorded appropriately, and included the outcome of the contact. We saw that appropriate pressure care equipment had been obtained for people and that people had appointments with opticians and chiropodists as needed.

We had been told prior to our visit to the home that staff had been instructed by the manager that some people who needed the assistance of two people for bathing could only have the assistance of one person (due to low staffing levels). The manager assured us that people received the assistance that had been identified in care assessments and care plans. Staff that we spoke to on the day of our site visit did not raise this as an issue and we found no evidence to substantiate this.

We saw a programme of weekly activities displayed in the lounge area and on the morning of our site visit we saw the activity taking place. Activities had been designed to promote independence, physical activity and mental agility.

A movement to music facilitator visited the home on a regular basis and was present on the afternoon of our site visit. They recorded interaction and progress forms for each participant and we saw that these had been retained with care records.