You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 September 2013
Date of Publication: 1 April 2014
Inspection Report published 01 April 2014 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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 11 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.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them.

We spoke with four people who lived at the home and one relative. People told us that they always felt involved in their care and that they were treated with respect. One person told us “There is always someone around to talk to and if you need anything they get it straightaway.” A visitor told us “They try their best to involve my relative in decisions about her care. They explain what the doctor has advised and help them to understand what treatment is needed. ”

We saw that before people made the decision to be admitted to the home, they were given information to help them decide. We saw a statement of purpose and a service user guide in addition to a brochure explaining about life at the home, the home’s philosophy, values and the promotion of choice.

We spent some time observing how staff interacted with people in a lounge and in the dining room of the home during a ‘zumba’ morning exercise group and a later harvest festival with a local church. We also made some observations during the midday meal. We saw that staff chatted with people in a thoughtful and kind way. We observed several one to one staff interactions and these were positive. Staff made an effort to include all people in activities and people were responding with enthusiasm to what was happening. We overheard people saying that they were enjoying themselves and we saw people laughing and talking with each other. During the meal, staff spent time explaining what they needed to do and gave people options. For example, people were asked their choice of drink and main meal at lunch time and were asked whether they had enjoyed their meal.

We looked at the assessments and care plans for four people who lived at the home. These included people’s preferences and showed that where possible, most people had been involved in drawing up their plans. Each care plan was available to people to read and the senior staff on duty explained that several people read their plans at review.

The home held resident’s meetings regularly. We saw minutes of several meetings. The meetings covered such areas as meals, outings and other activities. The manager told us that suggestions were acted upon wherever possible and we saw that requested changes had been recorded in care plans and daily notes. Each month every person had the opportunity to make a special request. We saw, for example, that people had chosen to visit relatives with support in the community, to visit a local garden centre and had chosen a favourite meal. This showed that people were consulted about their care.

Senior staff told us that they promoted equality and diversity within the home, and we saw that staff had received training in this recently.

We discussed with senior staff how the staff promoted people’s independence, and they gave an example of how a person had been rehabilitated through physiotherapy to return to living in the community.

We saw that the home highlighted its commitment to treating people with respect and regard for privacy through a clearly displayed mission statement in reception and in statements written on the walls of the new lounge and dining area. People had given their permission for photographs on large canvasses to be displayed around the home showing them engaged in activities and being treated with respect. We saw that the home had a policy and procedure on how to treat people with respect and that this information was given to people when they enquired about admission to the home.

Staff told us that their training had covered how to approach people with respect and that people’s views were of central importance to their care. We also observed that staff treated people with respect and regard to their dignity.