You are here

Archived: Individual Care Services - 1 Dexter Way Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 September 2012
Date of Publication: 2 October 2012
Inspection Report published 2 October 2012 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 7 September 2012, 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 privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People living in the home had complex needs which meant that they were not always able to tell us their experiences. We spent time during our visit observing care to help us understand their experiences.

We observed the staff on duty talking to people and including them in conversations. We saw that people were dressed in clean, smart clothes suitable for their age and appropriate for the weather. Staff were observed to ask people if they wanted drinks or something to eat throughout the morning and responded to the non verbal clues for people that were unable to answer.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of privacy and dignity. We were told that these were maintained for people at all times by offering choices, providing care behind closed doors and respecting people's confidentiality. One comment made was "Just because people can't talk doesn't mean they can't communicate or make choices." We saw that people were accompanied or taken to their bedrooms for support with their personal care, which was undertaken behind closed doors, and were offered a choice of drinks and meals.

Staff we spoke with told us that where people were not able to directly contribute to their care and support plans, their relatives were involved where possible. We saw information within one person's care records that we looked at which confirmed this.

We were told that although people were not able to be directly involved in their care and support planning, staff ensured that any observations which demonstrated that needs or preferences had changed were reported to the manager. The applicable care plan would then be updated as appropriate. We were given an example of one person changing their preference for where they like to sit to eat their meal. We saw that the person's care plan had been amended to reflect this change in preference.