You are here

Archived: Penrose

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 July 2013
Date of Publication: 2 October 2013
Inspection Report published 02 October 2013 PDF | 74.51 KB

People should be given the medicines they need when they need them, and in a safe way (outcome 9)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Will have their medicines at the times they need them, and in a safe way.
  • Wherever possible will have information about the medicine being prescribed made available to them or others acting on their behalf.

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 16 July 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Reasons for our judgement

The home had a current medication policy that included information and guidance on the administration, retention, disposal and recording of medication.

We observed medication being administered to one person during their breakfast. This was done in a person centred way and on looking at the administration record at the right time.

We observed during the inspection that medicines were stored securely in a locked cabinet in the office.There were no people living at the home at the time of our inspection who were prescribed a controlled drug. We saw that the refrigerator used to store medicines had the temperature recorded daily. There were no omissions in the recording records and all temperatures were within agreed limits.

Medicines were administered appropriately. We looked at the Medicine Administration Records (MAR) for the two people who live in the service. We saw that medication administered was correctly recorded. It also showed any reasons for the person not having had their medicine, for example if they refused or were asleep. There were no omissions in the entries. Appropriate records were maintained where people were prescribed a variable dose of medicine. The MAR charts showed the maximum daily dosage people were prescribed and what increments the medicines could be given. For example, a person who was prescribed a variable dose of paracetamol could have one or two tablets up to four times daily, with a maximum dosage of eight each day. Records showed that staff had signed the MAR chart to indicate that that the medicine had been given and the amount that had been administered. There was evidence of good practice in administration of medication

Medicines were administered safely. We saw from staff records that staff who administered medicines to people had received appropriate training. We spoke with the provider about staff competency assessments in medicines who told us this is undertaken and recorded in their staff records. When we reviewed staff files we saw evidence that medication competency assessments had been carried with staff.