You are here

Archived: The Priory

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 July 2013
Date of Publication: 21 August 2013
Inspection Report published 21 August 2013 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 16 July 2013, 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 carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

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 views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

One person we talked with told us that their relative was encouraged and supported to make choices and decisions about their care, but that staff also made sure they received the care they needed.

Staff we talked with gave us examples of how people’s individual requests had been carried out. For example one person had wanted a television in their bedroom and this was obtained for them, and for another person a puzzle board was provided. We saw that people were given choices about activities that were provided. We saw that people sat where they wanted to sit. Information provided at the staff handover meeting showed that people had been given the choice about when they got up, when they had breakfast, and how they had wanted to be assisted with their hygiene that morning. This meant that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and had received support in the way that they had requested.

We looked at care records for four people and found they all included a section which guided staff on how the person preferred their care to be provided. We observed one individual whose appearance showed that their stated preferences for personal grooming had been followed. The person told us, “We’re asked about what we want.” Staff we talked to gave examples of how they supported people to remain as independent as possible in line with their care plan. This included asking the person each day what areas of their hygiene and dressing they wanted to complete themselves. This meant that people's independence had been encouraged and supported.

We saw that people’s privacy was supported by staff. For example, when one person wished to remain in their bedroom this was shared between staff members and how the person would continue to be supported in their bedroom was agreed. There were sitting rooms in the home which staff advised us were available and used when people wished to spend private time with their visitors.

We saw that people were supported by staff in a way which promoted their dignity. Staff talked with people in a way which showed that they respected the person’s views and wishes. A relative told us that staff treated people with the same respect that they would give to people who were part of their own family. “Staff have a good rapport with people,” the relative told us.