You are here

Archived: Mrs Elaine Sandra Ward - 15 Sorrel Drive

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 February 2012
Date of Publication: 21 March 2012
Inspection Report published 21 March 2012 PDF | 51.01 KB

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

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 27/02/2012, checked the provider's records, observed how people were being cared for, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

People using this service receive effective, appropriate and personalised care and support.

User experience

During our visit on 27 February 2012 we spoke with two people living in the home. One person was able to tell us about their experiences of living in the home whilst the other gave yes or no answers and responded more with non verbal body language during our conversations.

When we arrived at the home one person was waiting to go out to their day service provision whilst another was having breakfast.

One person we spoke with told us that they had lived in the home for a number of years and that they liked living as part of the family. "It's alright living here." They also told us "I like it, I like my bedroom, I'm happy." We asked the second person that we spoke with if they were happy living in the home and they responded "yes" and smiled.

We saw that both people we spoke with during our visit appeared relaxed and happy. They were included in conversations and discussions by the staff on duty and close, positive relationships were apparent.

One person we spoke with told us that they were expecting visitors later in the day and talked with us about their family. The staff on duty said that the person concerned had a large family who visited regularly.

Other evidence

We asked the people that we spoke with if we could look at their care records. They both told us that we could. We saw that care plans were in place for each person. These were detailed and gave clear information about individual needs. Any potential risks associated with each person had been clearly identified along with actions to take to make sure they were minimised. A staff member we spoke with was knowledgeable about the care needs of the people living in the home. One person we spoke with confirmed through informal discussion that the information within their care plan was relevant to their individual care needs.

We were told that information handovers between the staff, agency staff and registered person were undertaken on a verbal basis, rather than being written down. We were shown individual diaries belonging to people, but noted that information was not being recorded on a regular basis.

We were told that health care appointments for people were recorded in the homes' diary. We looked at this and noted that upcoming appointments for people were recorded. We asked the staff member on duty where they recorded the outcome and any treatment arising from people’s healthcare appointments. We were told that this was also done on a verbal basis.

We asked a staff member on duty about her understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. She told us that she had received training in safeguarding adults and child protection and was able to tell us what she would do if she ever suspected abuse had or was taking place.

The registered person was not available during our visit. We spoke with her by telephone at a later date. She advised that although she was aware of her responsibilities in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults, she was unaware of the local authority safeguarding protocol. She advised that she would contact the safeguarding team to obtain a copy.