You are here

Archived: Tranquility House Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 October 2013
Date of Publication: 29 November 2013
Inspection Report published 29 November 2013 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 29 October 2013, 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.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. For example, we spoke with people who used the service and they told us that they made choices about their daily routines and were asked about their preferences. This included what they wanted to wear, what they would like to eat and what time they got up and went to bed. One person told us “the staff get my clothes out of the wardrobe; I always choose what I want to wear”. People told us that they decided when to get up in the mornings and what time they went to bed and we saw care records that identified people’s individual preferences about their morning and bedtime routines. Daily records also confirmed that staff followed people’s preferred routines, for example, when people chose to stay up later in the evenings, or liked to be woken earlier in the mornings with a hot drink before breakfast.

We spoke to a visitor, who told us that they were involved in and consulted about their relative’s care and support needs. They said the staff kept them up-to-date and that they had regular discussions about changes in their relative’s health care needs, for example, when the doctor or the community nurse had visited.

People told us that they enjoyed the food, that there were menu choices available, and alternatives would be provided if requested. We observed the lunch time meal and saw that staff continually checked that people were enjoying their meal and whether they had had enough to eat or drink. Staff also checked with people about when they wanted to take their lunch-time medicines, for example, whether they preferred to take them with their meal or when they had finished.

People told us that they were able to choose how to spend their time. During our inspection, we saw that some people were socialising together in the shared TV lounge, whilst others were spending time in the smaller lounge and conservatory. We saw one person reading the newspaper and listening to the radio, whilst having morning coffee. They told us they pleased themselves about what they did during the day and that there was plenty to occupy their time. We later saw them playing cards in the conservatory. A visitor told us that their relative preferred to stay in their own room during the day, as they preferred their own company and was “a bit of a loner”. We saw that this preference was reflected in their care records.

We saw that activities and entertainment dates were displayed in the reception hall, for people to participate in if they wished. One person who used the service told us they enjoyed the musical entertainment and liked to join in. Other people told us that they go out regularly, usually with their family and friends, however, some people went out on their own and during our inspection, we saw that one person was on their way out to do some shopping in the town.

People were supported in promoting their independence. For example, we saw that care records clearly identified where people were able to undertake aspects of their own personal care and were supported to do things for themselves wherever possible. One person who used the service told us “I am able to do things for myself, but staff make sure you’re alright; they check on you”. We spoke with staff, who clearly knew the needs and preferences of the people they supported.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected. We saw that staff knocked on people’s bedroom doors before entering and were respectful in how they addressed and spoke with them. We saw that where people required help and support, staff assisted them in a quiet and dignified manner, at their own pace, without rushing. Records showed that the home had a ‘Residents’ Charter of Rights’ and a policy about equality and diversity.