You are here

Stoneacre Lodge Residential Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 September 2011
Date of Publication: 15 November 2011
Inspection Report published 15 November 2011 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

Our judgement

People’s rights to privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted within the service. People living in the home and their relatives or friends were able to comment on and influence the care and support offered to them.

User experience

People we spoke with were happy in the home and felt they were respected and involved. One person said “Although I have sight problems I like to be as independent as possible; staff respect this and give me support when I need it”.

People we spoke with told us that they were involved in the decisions about their care and staff were good at communicating with their relatives. One person said “With my permission the staff talk to my daughter each week about how I am doing and keep her up to date about my health and well being”.

People told us that they enjoyed the activities in the home especially the dominoes and quizzes. They told us that the activity co-ordinator was not on duty the day we visited, but would be in the next day. People said they chose the activities on a daily basis.

Other evidence

Staff members on duty were knowledgeable about the needs of each person they looked after and had a good understanding of the care given on a daily basis. Observations of the staff at work indicated they respected people’s wishes and choices regarding their care and maintained their dignity during care giving. People were seen to be spending time in the lounge areas or in their own rooms depending on what they wanted to do.

We looked at three care plans and where possible spoke to people about their care. We found that people were involved in making decisions about their care and could access information in their care plan when wished. Two out of the three care plans we looked at contained information about capacity to consent to care. On the whole people’s preferences were recorded in their care plan as well as their choices and decisions regarding daily activities of living. However this was more detailed for those who had full capacity than for individuals who had dementia.

The provider arranged review meetings with the person who used the service, relatives and the funding authority. These gave people an opportunity to talk about their care and treatment. Information on the discussion and outcomes from the reviews were found in the care plans we looked at.