You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 October 2012
Date of Publication: 23 November 2012
Inspection Report published 23 November 2012 PDF

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

Not met 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 29 October 2012, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The service was not meeting this standard. There was limited documented evidence that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.


Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned when people first began to use the service. Care plans had been reviewed but the outcome of reviews had not always been recorded or detailed. People who used the service had completed questionnaires through which they gave positive feedback about what they thought of the care they had received.

Documentation related to the monitoring of people's health was incomplete. There were gaps in records (for example whether people had been weighed); daily notes of whether people had been supported with personal care had not always been completed and risk assessments had not been regularly reviewed. However, we did see evidence that people had been supported to attend appointments with health professionals who attended to peoples nursing and medical needs.

The service had supported people to participate in activities that they were interested in and which helped them maintain as much independence as possible in the home and in the wider community..

The service had a business continuity plan, but the plan did not contain details of action to take in the event of an emergency to ensure continued provision of care to people who used the service.

We found that care plans did not include information about what the aims and objectives of people's care plans were. Documentation in care plans was disorganised and sometimes incomplete which made it very difficult to see whether people's needs had been reassessed and planned and delivered in a way that met people's individual needs.

The service had begun a process of introducing new person centred care plans for all of the people who used the service.