You are here

Archived: Haddon Court Nursing Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 July 2012
Date of Publication: 21 November 2012
Inspection Report - DN published 21 November 2012 PDF


Inspection carried out on 10 July 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector, joined by a professional professional and an �expert by experience� (a person who has experience of using services and who can provide that perspective).

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.

During the SOFI and whilst walking around the floors of the home we saw lots of examples where people moved about the home independently. For example, some people used their rooms as they wanted and some spent time in the communal areas.

We saw that staff had a caring approach to people and people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff were polite towards people and behaved in an appropriate manner towards them.

People told us the manager or staff did ask if they were happy with the care provided and any changes they made involving their care, before they were introduced. They told us it was their choice how they spent their time.

People we spoke with said they didn�t like the meals provided. Some comments included, �it�s edible but I don�t always like it too much� and �I�m never hungry and have plenty to drink. I put up with the food. Sometimes it�s ok, but most times it is ...�. They told us they got a choice of menu, but it wasn�t very good. They told us food was available between meals if they wanted it, but it was usually biscuits. We asked if anyone asked them what they liked to eat and they either said no or they didn�t know.

The lunch time period was a poor meal time experience for some people. For example, one person who remained in their wheelchair for their meal, had their hoist sling velcroed around them, which kept going into their meal and some people were not offered alternatives, when they didn't eat their meal. There was no choice of sweet and people were not offered an alternative, if they didn�t want the dessert on offer. People were not asked if they�d had enough to eat nor offered more. The trolley on which dirty crockery, cutlery and waste was placed, was sited next to a dining table where people were sitting, which wasn�t very pleasant for those individuals.

People felt they could talk to the manager if they had any concerns or were worried about anything.

People we spoke with said it depended on the time of day as to whether there were sufficient staff to help them and sometimes staff were off sick so staff had to rush things and had no time to talk with them.

People we spoke with felt staff had the skills to look after them properly. They told us staff were always away training.