You are here

Ingham Old Hall Care Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 February 2012
Date of Publication: 18 April 2012
Inspection Report published 18 April 2012 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

Our judgement

The service is compliant with this outcome, but, to maintain this we have suggested some improvements are made.

People using the service are treated with respect and their dignity is being promoted. However, improvements are needed to ensure that this position is maintained.

User experience

People with whom we spoke told us that they were able to make decisions about the way in which they wished to live their lives. One person told us that they preferred to stay in their room and staff respected their wishes. Another person told us that staff treated them well and considered their dignity and privacy. Three people told us that they were not always offered a choice of meals.

Other evidence

During our visit we observed staff engaging with people using the service. We found that staff had a kind, caring approach to people and spoke to them in a respectful manner. Staff were observed to offer people choices and to assist them with making decisions about their daily routines. People using the service looked well supported to maintain their appearance and we considered that their dignity was being promoted.

However, we also observed some areas that required improvement. For instance, we saw staff placing plastic aprons on some people at mealtime without asking them if they wanted one and without explaining what they were about to do.

We looked at the records relating to some people using the service and found that where possible people were involved in the planning of their care. We saw evidence that relatives had been involved in providing information about people’s life history and their preferences with respect to how they would like to be supported with their care. There was some evidence of person centred planning in people’s care plans but it was limited. (see outcome 4 for more information)