You are here

Ingham Old Hall Care Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 October 2012
Date of Publication: 14 November 2012
Inspection Report published 14 November 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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 22 October 2012, 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 staff and talked with stakeholders.

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

During our visit we looked at five care plans for people living at Ingham Old Hall. We saw that all the care plans were person centred this meant they looked at what the person wanted rather than task orientated. We saw that everyone's care plan had been compiled into a new format. Each plan was contained in individual folders beginning with the person's personal details, a life story about their past and an index of specific care needs with the required risk and action to meet their needs. The care plans showed us that the person or their family member were involved when writing up the care needs which were signed by them. We saw that the care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis.

We observed how staff treated people respectfully, asking direct questions to minimise confusion for those with a memory impairment. People were dressed appropriately, were offered choices and included in conversation. We saw staff knock on people's bedroom doors before entering and assisting people with their drinks and meals in a discreet manner.

People we spoke with told us: "The staff are wonderful here, they're all very kind to me." Another person said: "They help me to come down to the lounge so I can sit with my friends."