You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 February 2012
Date of Publication: 2 March 2012
Inspection Report published 2 March 2012 PDF | 53.28 KB

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

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 09/02/2012, checked the provider's records, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

People who come to Cotswold Care Hospice for care, treatment and support are treated with privacy and dignity. People are given information that enables them to be involved in the decisions made about the care they receive.

Overall, we found that Cotswold Care Hospice was meeting this essential standard.

User experience

We met and talked with seven people who were at Cotswold Care Hospice for treatment, support and care on the day of our visit. We asked them if they felt they had been treated in ways that maintained their privacy. People said that any confidential discussions, counselling, treatment or therapy was always carried out in private rooms. There were a number of treatment rooms or quiet rooms available for people. We were told that people had not had their private conversations with staff overheard and had not overheard private conversations between staff and other people. People said that they believed their records were held confidentially and not shared with people unless this had been agreed.

We asked people if they were given enough information about the care available to them at the service. People said that they were able to attend an assessment with staff before coming to the service and at that time were given "plenty" and "very clear" information about the service and what they could expect if they came for care. People said that they were asked "appropriate" and "relevant" questions about their needs and were given clear expectations about what the service could provide for them.

One person that we met had also visited the service in the past with a close relative and told us that care and counselling services provided to families and carers was "a lifesaver".

Other evidence

We asked members of the care staff how they ensured that people were treated with privacy and dignity. We heard that staff made sure that all conversations that needed to be held in private were carried out in appointed treatment or quiet rooms. Staff said that they always knocked on doors before entering, even if rooms were thought to be unoccupied. We observed evidence of this during our visit.

Staff also told us that they respected people's choices and the right to make decisions. We were told that staff would accept a person's decision even if that decision involved risks to the person or made choices that might be deemed unwise.

In our observations of care, we saw staff treat people with respect and kindness. We saw that conversations even in the busier areas such as the dining room and art therapy room were respectful and focused upon the person as an individual. We saw that staff knew each person well, and knew their names and their likes and dislikes.

We saw that patient records and information held about patients, such as on whiteboards, was kept secure and in an area that was not open to patients or carers. Patient records were locked securely when not in use and were only available to people who had the authority to see them.

We asked the head of care services for evidence of the organisation listening to people who used the service and how that had influenced practice. We heard that one example was in the construction of a covered walkway from the carpark to the hospice entrance. This had been done in response to comments from people and to enable them to access the hospice from their transport without getting wet when it was raining. People had also been asked to contribute to how the landscaped garden area outside of the conservatory was designed and made.