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 get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

Staff told us that where people were unable to contribute to planning their care, their relatives were encouraged to be involved. We were also told that staff were continuously observing people to ensure that they had a complete picture of their care needs and preferences.

A relative we spoke with told us that the home consulted them about the care and support needs of their relative. One comment made was "If there are any big decisions to be made the manager rings us and asks our opinion."

We were told that relatives were invited to review meetings and provided with copies of people's care plans. One

relative we spoke with confirmed this.

We looked at the care records for two people. We saw that they contained information that enabled staff to provide the care and support people required. The provider may find it useful to note that although we saw that people's care plans were reviewed, they were not always dated or signed by the author. This made it difficult to confirm that the information was pertinent to people's current needs.

We saw that there were management plans and protocols in place for people with specific needs such as epilepsy. We asked to see the protocol for one person who enjoyed nights away from the service. The provider may find it useful to note that this protocol could not be located during our inspection. It was however forwarded to us following

our visit.

We saw that people's healthcare needs were looked after with regular access to relevant healthcare professionals.

Staff we spoke with told us that they provided day care for the majority of the people living in the home. The manager told us that she had introduced weekly activity planners for people to ensure that they participated in at least one activity or outing each day. We looked at people's daily diaries and saw that people were being provided with a variety of outings and activities, which included going to the cinema, visiting local attractions, meals out, sensory sessions, cooking sessions and nights away.

We saw that medication was stored securely in a locked wall mounted cabinet. We saw that it was clean, tidy and well ordered. We saw that medication was supplied by a local pharmacy in blister packs for each person on an individual basis. We looked at two lots of medication administration records (MAR). We saw that the member of staff responsible for administering the medication had signed these appropriately. We noted that there were no gaps in recording of medication when it had been administered. Staff we spoke with showed us their audit record for each time medication was administered. This demonstrated that there were processes in place for the safe management and administration of medication on the day of our visit.