You are here

Archived: Haddon Court Nursing Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 June 2014
Date of Publication: 22 July 2014
Inspection Report published 22 July 2014 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 23 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services. We reviewed information sent to us by other authorities and reviewed information sent to us by local groups of people in the community or voluntary sector.

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.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with 12 people who lived at the home and three visiting relatives. All people who used the service and their relatives said that staff treated people respectfully. Relatives told us, “Staff do a good job. I wouldn’t do their job for anything” and “Everyone is respectful and our [family member] has been treated with dignity.”

Other comments made to us by people who used the service were, “They [staff] tell me what to do,” “They’re always picking on you. They [staff] tell you what to do all the time and I don’t like it,” “I get up at 6.15 and nobody comes near me. If I go and ask for a cup of tea, they say ‘in half an hour’ and then they don’t get me one.” One person said that when her relative had visited recently, staff had been laughing about their last name and its pronunciation. This meant that staff did not always recognise and respect the diversity and human rights of people who used the service.

At this visit we arrived at the home at 8:45am and spent a period of time sitting with a group of people in the dining room on the ground floor. We were able to observe people's experiences of living in the home and their interactions with each other and the staff.

During our observation we saw friendly interactions between staff and people who used the service and there was kindness in staff’s tone of voice when speaking with people. We saw peoples' needs were being met. Staff addressed people by their preferred names and people seemed comfortable in the presence of staff. Interactions between staff and people who used the service were relaxed and unrushed.

One person was upset and asked us if we thought their hair “looked a mess.” Staff said the person had been showered and their hair washed. We observed the person’s hair was not styled and needed some attention. Staff told the person they would brush their hair when they had finished breakfast. Throughout breakfast the person continued to worry about their hair “looking a mess.” This meant this person did not have their dignity respected.

We observed a person who used the service sitting separately from others in the lounge area. Two members of staff came and went without acknowledging the person in any way. One member of staff came into the lounge and sat in the same area. They did not speak to the person at first but then told us they were escorting the person to a hospital appointment. At that point they started chatting to the person about their appointment.

We observed some staff listening to people and supporting them to make decisions about their care and support. Much of the interaction we observed between staff and people was kind and thoughtful. We saw staff communicating with people patiently and respectfully. It was very evident that some staff were skilled in involving and actively listening to people.

We spoke with seven staff members who explained how they offered choices to people. During our observations, we saw staff asking people what they wanted to eat and drink. One staff member spoke about how they explained things to people and said, "We give people alternatives and then give them time to let them decide things for themselves." Another staff member gave examples of how they ensured people could make their own decisions, "I ask people what they would like to wear, if they would like a bath, if they want to do an activity."

The provider may find it useful to note that staff skills in recognising and respecting the diversity and human rights of people who use the service varied significantly. Some staff were able to tell us how important it was for people, other staff were less understanding of the concepts of privacy, dignity and independence.

Staff told us that the issue of privacy, dignity and choice was discussed at all training events. A member of staff had signed up to become a 'dignity champion'. Each month the ‘dignity champion’ completed an audit of their observations regarding dignity and respect. We saw the audit had