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 | 80.92 KB

People should be given the medicines they need when they need them, and in a safe way (outcome 9)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Will have their medicines at the times they need them, and in a safe way.
  • Wherever possible will have information about the medicine being prescribed made available to them or others acting on their behalf.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 28/06/2011 and observed how people were being cared for.

Our judgement

People received their medicines at the times they needed them and in a safe way, although more care needed to be taken with recording on medication administration record charts.

User experience

We did not speak directly to people living at the home about this outcome.

Other evidence

The provider told us in a PCA that was received in December 2010 that staff had now received appropriate training on the administration of medication and that a pharmacist visited the home on a monthly basis to undertake an audit.

We observed that the medication store cupboard had been relocated from the manager’s office to a cupboard in the nearby corridor. This enabled staff to access medication without having to disturb the manager or any meetings that might be taking place.

The home had obtained the services of a new pharmacist and they had provided the home with a new medication trolley. The trolley was fastened to the wall in the medication cupboard and there was a separate metal controlled drugs cupboard attached to the wall.

We checked the medication administration record (MAR) charts and found recording on them to be mostly accurate. New stock was entered appropriately, there were two signatures to verify hand written entries and we found no gaps in recording. However, more care needed to be taken to use the correct codes when medication was not given i.e. the codes that were recorded on the actual MAR chart must be used. A photograph of each person was attached to their medication records to assist staff with identification and reduce the risk of errors occurring.

We saw that each individual’s requirements for ‘as required’ (PRN) medication was not recorded. Staff told us that people were asked how many pain relief tablets they required and that they usually requested two. MAR charts recorded that people usually took their pain relief tablets when they had been prescribed them, but did not record whether they had taken one or two tablets. Each person’s individual requirements regarding PRN medication should be recorded alongside their MAR chart and a record should be kept of when they refused this medication.

We reviewed the records for controlled drugs and checked a sample of records against the number of drugs held; these were found to be accurate. Staff told us that Temazepam was treated as a controlled drug (as recommended) and we saw that this was the case.

Unused medication was returned to the pharmacist and we saw that all medication waiting to be returned had been recorded in a returns book; this was signed by a member of staff and by a representative of the pharmacy at the time of collection.

Training records evidenced that staff who had responsibility for the administration of medication had received appropriate training. There had recently been a medication error at the home and the manager confirmed that the appropriate people had been informed. The staff member concerned had contacted the person’s GP, who had advised that they should be observed for 24 hours. The member of staff was then observed whilst administering medication for the next two weeks to ensure that they remained competent to carry out this task.