You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 May 2012
Date of Publication: 29 May 2012
Inspection Report published 29 May 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 provider was meeting this regulation. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

User experience

We found that the home was registered to accommodate people with specific needs and had thirteen permanent rooms and two rooms for short term stays. The registered manager told us that people were referred to the service because they are known for the specific type of care and support available. The registered manager told us they undertook assessments of people’s needs prior to admission to make sure this was the most appropriate place for them. One person we talked with said, “The manager came to my home to assess my needs, then I came for a visit and had a look around”. We found that the registered manager had undertaken risk assessments for all aspects of care and support that would be needed, cognition, physical health, eating, medication, and falls, for example. One person said, “I am not allowed to walk around outside on my own, but I can walk around indoors with someone beside me”. This meant that people expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

We saw people being supported to eat at lunch time and staff explained how they supported another person who was fed by an intestinal tube. One person we talked with said, “They know the care I need and are always able to accommodate my needs”. One member of staff said, “One person often just needs us around”. This meant that people were involved in identifying their care needs and they had written personalised care plans.

The care manager told us that people had their individual preferences for activities. We found that people were encouraged to pursue their own interests, for example, football, gardening, painting, going to the cinema, cooking and electronics. One person we talked with told us they enjoyed spending time in the lounge chatting with other people and staff. One member of staff we talked with explained that they work part time as a carer and support worker and part time as the minibus driver. This meant that people were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement.

We found that staff were respectful and polite to people who lived at the home. We saw that staff knocked on people’s doors and waited for a reply before entering. We saw that some people preferred to keep their doors locked and that staff were happy to ask and collect their keys before going in to clean their rooms. One person we talked to said, “Staff always knock my door, show me respect and dignity and I had a choice of male or female carer”. This meant that people's diversity, values and human rights were respected.

The care manager and registered manager told us they regularly have informal conversations with people who live at the home, which gives them an opportunity to hear whatever is important to people at that time. One person we talked with said, “Staff used to do a monthly survey, but I told them I didn’t like doing that - we talk about my care and activities though”. This meant that people who use services have their views and experience taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

Other evidence

We saw that people had signed written care plans, based on the level of risk identified and included people’s preferences, needs, activities, spiritual physiological and end of life care. We found that people’s different needs had been identified.

We saw that everyone had a life diary and staff recorded people’s activities and visitors. We found that people’s support needs to continue their interests varied and that staff had been recruited to match people’s needs.

We found that the service manager regularly talked with people, as part of their monthly quality check and the provider conducted annual surveys of people who lived at the home, staff and other people involved in care.