You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 September 2011
Date of Publication: 16 December 2011
Inspection Report published 16 December 2011 PDF | 49.75 KB

People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare (outcome 10)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 22/09/2011, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff, reviewed information from stakeholders and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

Remyck House has addressed some but not all of concerns we had identified previously. The provider must ensure that people who use this service are protected fully; by the premises being adequately maintained.

Overall Remyck House was not meeting this essential standard.

User experience

People told us that they liked living at the service and they enjoyed having their own room. They said that they were able to see their visitors in the privacy of their bedroom.

Other evidence

Following our last visit, the home provided us with an action plan to improve their compliance with this outcome. The action plan included that daily checks had been made of the home with the maintenance person to identify any shortfalls and action such shortfalls in a timely manner. A maintenance book was available for staff to write any repairs identified and for the maintenance person to action.

During our visit we looked around all areas of the home, including bedrooms. We saw personal items displayed, such as photographs and pictures. Residents confirmed the majority of the furniture in their rooms was theirs, which they had brought with them when they started living at the home. We observed that residents were

using communal areas, such as the lounge and dining room.

Accommodation was provided over two floors, with communal areas and a bathroom on the ground floor. Access to the upper floors was either by passenger lifts or stairs. Visitors were required to sign in on entering and leaving the building.

Whilst we walked around the home during our visit, we found the majority of radiator covers in the hallways were not secured to the wall, and were therefore at risk of falling off.

During our last visit, we found a wall in the dining room had paint flaking and peeling off. We found the same during this visit. Rushmoor Borough Council (RBC) carried out a follow up environmental health inspection on the same day as our visit. They reported the same concerns regarding the wall and radiators to the provider separately to this report. The provider supplied risk assessments to RBC that they shared with us, that stated how the risks would be reduced.

We looked at records and saw that regular health and safety checks were carried out. Generic risk assessments were up to date. We saw that emergency evacuation plans were in place for events such as a fire. Records showed that fire safety checks were carried out routinely and staff explained the evacuation procedure to us.

During our visit, we saw records of an audit carried out on 11 August 2011 by the manager. All of the issues that we found during this visit had been highlighted in the audit that the manager had completed and none had been actioned. A maintenance book was available for staff to record any problems, but there was nowhere for the maintenance person to record when it had been actioned.

Records showed that the dishwasher had broken on 29 September 2011, and dirty water remained in the bottom of the machine. During our visit the dishwasher was fixed by an engineer.