You are here

Sutton Village Care Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 January 2012
Date of Publication: 13 February 2012
Inspection Report published 13 February 2012 PDF

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

Our judgement

People had their health and personal care needs assessed and planned for and had access to a range of health care professionals for advice and treatment. A lack of dates and signatures on care plan and risk assessment documentation could affect audit and agreement of the care provided. There was one occasion when staff did not appreciate the consequences of a specific incident and did not seek medical advice.

User experience

People spoken with said they were able to see their GP when required. They told us they were well looked after. Comments included, “There is always someone around – you are not completely alone”, “I have my own doctor and he comes here to see me” and “I am well looked after.”

Other evidence

During the visit we looked at a selection of care file documentation. There was evidence that people’s needs were assessed prior to admission and care plans were completed to provide staff with guidance in how to support the person in meeting their needs. The care plans were kept under review and generally updated when required. We found that not all care plans and risk assessments were signed and dated by staff and the person they were about. This made it difficult to check if the person had agreed to the care plan.

Risk assessments were completed for a range of issues, although the bed rail risk assessment did not state why they were required and which type of bedrail was appropriate for the bed, the mattress and the person. We also found that staff recorded the temperature of bath water as 37°Centigrade, which could be quite cool for people. These were mentioned to the manager to address.

Documentation showed that people had access to a range of health and social care professionals for advice, treatment and monitoring. Documentation showed that staff had not contacted a GP for advice following a specific concern for one person. We could see that usually a log was maintained of discussions with health care professionals and we were assured that the omission was a single occurrence and would not be repeated. A district nurse spoken with prior to the inspection confirmed staff were always available during their visits and followed any advice they gave.

In discussions staff told us people were weighed monthly or more often if this was required and the dietician was involved with people when concerns had been identified. The weight recordings did not have the full date, which may cause difficulties when trying to audit accurately.

We observed staff try to encourage a person to eat their lunch. They returned several times to offer prompts and brought alternative items such as a glass of milk. We checked the person’s care plan and found that staff had followed dietician instructions regarding meal provision as well as respecting the person’s choice about their meals.

Staff also described how they would prevent pressure ulcers from developing with good personal hygiene, the use of barrier creams and special mattresses, and by supporting people to relieve pressure. There were no people with any pressure ulcers at the time of the inspection.