You are here

Folkestone Nursing Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 September 2013
Date of Publication: 9 October 2013
Inspection Report published 09 October 2013 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)

Not met 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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s privacy was not always respected and their views and experiences were not always taken into account in the way the service was provided.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke to the activities co-ordinator who had arranged for some people to attend a session at a local day centre. People who used the service told us later that they had “really enjoyed the day out” and were “looking forward to going again”.

We looked at seven care plans which showed varying degrees of input from the individual themselves. All contained a basic life history and details of the person's end of life wishes.

We spoke with staff, who demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and how to promote people’s independence. Staff told us they supported one person to access the community independently by ensuring they carried the address and home contact details with them when they went out. Another person told us they went to the local shops on their own but took their mobile phone with them in case they needed to contact staff.

We observed the staff handovers for the carers on the ground floor and the qualified nurses. The provider may wish to note that although handovers detailed people’s health and social wellbeing, one part of a handover took place in a communal area which may have compromised the dignity and confidentiality of some people who used the service.

Staff we spoke with were aware of people’s rights. However, some people we spoke to felt their privacy was not always maintained. People who used the service told us that they had sometimes been bothered by the behaviour of others who used the service. We were told about one person who wandered into other people’s bedrooms and at times damaged or took personal items. We looked at this person’s care plan and saw that this behaviour had been documented as a regular occurrence. Staff acknowledged that this person’s behaviour was partly managed through allowing them the freedom to move around the home and explained how they monitored this. However, other people who used the service stated that they did not feel that the situation was being managed.

People told us that they did not have a key to their bedroom door. One person said “we are not allowed, we might lose it” and other people said they didn’t know why they didn’t have one. Staff told us that people could ask them to lock their rooms when they were not using them. However, it was not clear whether everyone would be able to make this request to staff.

The provider may wish to note that although there were three staff appointed as dignity champions, there was no evidence that they had received the role specific training which the provider told us they were arranging at our last inspection in May 2013.