You are here

Archived: Hawthorn House

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 December 2011
Date of Publication: 24 January 2012
Inspection Report published 24 January 2012 PDF | 55.97 KB

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 reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 13/12/2011 and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

People experienced opportunities to understand the care and support available to them, expressed their views where they were able, and were involved in making decisions. Peoples’ privacy, dignity and independence were respected and their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered.

User experience

We spoke with six people that lived at Hawthorn House and they told us they had been included in the gathering of their personal information, in compiling their care plans and in making decisions about the care and support they required.

People told us their privacy and dignity was respected.

Other evidence

We discussed involving and respecting people with the manager and two staff and we looked at the case files of two people that lived in the home.

Staff explained their understanding of peoples' needs and wishes and told us about the ways in which they offered choices to people. Staff were aware of the need to implement 'best interest' meetings for those people who lack capacity when necessary and gave us an example of when they had implemented decisions made at a 'best interest' meeting.

Case files contained details of peoples' assessed needs and recorded when decisions had been made and showed the ways in which people had been included.

We saw people being treated with respect and that their privacy and dignity was maintained.

We saw evidence that people were consulted about the ways in which the service was delivered, in the form of surveys and questionnaires they had completed as part of the quality monitoring system within the home.